Gollick v. Lake Region Hotel Co.

159 So. 291, 118 Fla. 370, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1713
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 8, 1935·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is before us on motion to quash appeal addressed to final decree. Sections 2920 R. G. S., 4639 C. G. L., and 3173 R. G. S., 4965 C. G. L.; and Williams v. Dunn, 105 Fla. 327, 141 Sou. 190; Holtsberg v. McCrary (Fla.) 158 Sou. 123.

This is the third appearance of the case here. See Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick, 110 Fla. 324, 149 Sou. 204, and same, 111 Fla. 64, 140 Sou. 205.

The motion to quash will be denied.

*371 In considering the motion to quash it has been necessary for us to study the record and also the brief filed on behalf of appellant Gollick.

The disposition of the appeal now depends solely upon a determination of the question whether or not the decree is supported by substantial evidence. We find that there is abundant substantial evidence to support and, therefore, the decree appealed from should now be affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Gollick v. Lake Region Hotel Co., 159 So. 291, 118 Fla. 370, 1935 Fla. LEXIS 1713 (Fla. 1935).

159 So. 291 (Gollick v. Lake Region Hotel Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Dunn
141 So. 190 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)
Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick
149 So. 204 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Lake Region Hotel Co. v. Gollick
149 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Holtsberg v. McCarty
158 So. 123 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Pepple v. Rogers
140 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1932)