Graham v. Randall

99 So. 559, 87 Fla. 261
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 18, 1924·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In this case the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne are of opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of error is addressed should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West and Mr. Justice Terrell are [262]*262of opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and, there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, Muller & Auerbach v. Cowart, and Meier v. State, the three last cited cases having been decided at this term.

An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.

All concur.

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

Graham v. Randall, 99 So. 559, 87 Fla. 261 (Fla. 1924).

99 So. 559 (Graham v. Randall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung
47 Fla. 224 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys
61 Fla. 389 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1911)
Quigg v. Radel
97 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Griffith v. Alcocke
37 So. 47 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)