Deeb v. Holcombe & Hoke Manufacturing Co.

100 So. 749, 87 Fla. 510
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 21, 1924·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed. See Friedenwald Co. v. Warren, 195 Mass. 432, 81 N. E. Rep. 207; Ronnoc Grove Co. v. Coe-Mortimer Co., 83 Fla. 370, 91 South. Rep. 265. Sec. 4098, Revised Gen. Stats.

•Affirmed.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deeb v. Holcombe & Hoke Manufacturing Co., 100 So. 749, 87 Fla. 510 (Fla. 1924).

100 So. 749 (Deeb v. Holcombe & Hoke Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ronnoc Grove Co. v. Coe-Mortimer Co.
91 So. 265 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Friedenwald Co. v. Warren
81 N.E. 207 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1907)