Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville

Supreme Court of Florida

Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville

21 So. 2d 209, 155 Fla. 729, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 635

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 So. 2d 209 (Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodwin v. City of Jacksonville, 21 So. 2d 209, 155 Fla. 729, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 635 (Fla. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a final decree, in which the éxceptions to the master’s report wfere overruled, the equities were found to be with the defendant, and the plaintiffs’ bill dismissed.

In spite of the fact that counsel for appellants had already entered the armed forces. of our country -when he prepared his main brief in behalf of appellants, as well as his reply brief, both of his briefs present very ably and thoroughly every argument which in our opinion could have been, or could be, made in appellants’ behalf. Also, counsel for appellee, who labored under no such difficult conditions, have ably presented their argument in behalf of the correctness of *730 the chancellor’s decree. Both briefs are repíete with citations of authorities and court decisions.

It would require a long opinion to review the pleadings and evidence and to discuss the various arguments presented by counsel, and we doubt if any good purpose would be sub-served thereby. Suffice it to say that we have carefully considered the record and the briefs and are satisfied that on the merits of the case the conclusion reached by the master and chancellor was correct, and that no reversible error was committed.

But in our opinion it was to the interest of each of the opposing parties that the main questions involved should be settled, and that therefore the costs in this case, including the master’s fee, should have been equally borne, one-half by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and one-half by the defendant City. In all other respects the decree below should be and is hereby affirmed.

Decree affirmed, and cause remanded with directions to retax the costs as above stated.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a final decree, in which the éxceptions to the master’s report wfere overruled, the equities were found to be with the defendant, and the plaintiffs’ bill dismissed.

In spite of the fact that counsel for appellants had already entered the armed forces. of our country -when he prepared his main brief in behalf of appellants, as well as his reply brief, both of his briefs present very ably and thoroughly every argument which in our opinion could have been, or could be, made in appellants’ behalf. Also, counsel for appellee, who labored under no such difficult conditions, have ably presented their argument in behalf of the correctness of *730 the chancellor’s decree. Both briefs are repíete with citations of authorities and court decisions.

It would require a long opinion to review the pleadings and evidence and to discuss the various arguments presented by counsel, and we doubt if any good purpose would be sub-served thereby. Suffice it to say that we have carefully considered the record and the briefs and are satisfied that on the merits of the case the conclusion reached by the master and chancellor was correct, and that no reversible error was committed.

But in our opinion it was to the interest of each of the opposing parties that the main questions involved should be settled, and that therefore the costs in this case, including the master’s fee, should have been equally borne, one-half by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and one-half by the defendant City. In all other respects the decree below should be and is hereby affirmed.

Decree affirmed, and cause remanded with directions to retax the costs as above stated.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 So. 2d 209, 155 Fla. 729, 1945 Fla. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodwin-v-city-of-jacksonville-fla-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack