Harrison v. Richter Jewelry Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Harrison v. Richter Jewelry Co.

194 So. 218, 141 Fla. 859, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 875

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 20, 1940·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

AVrit of error was sued out to judgment on demurrer to an amended declaration although at the time of the judgment the plaintiff had filed a second amended *860 declaration for the evident purpose of confessing error under rule 40 of the common law rules. In this situation the entry of the judgment on the demurrer to the first amended declaration' was error.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. Ct-iapman, J., concurs in' opinion and judgment. Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

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

Per Curiam.

AVrit of error was sued out to judgment on demurrer to an amended declaration although at the time of the judgment the plaintiff had filed a second amended *860 declaration for the evident purpose of confessing error under rule 40 of the common law rules. In this situation the entry of the judgment on the demurrer to the first amended declaration' was error.

Reversed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. Ct-iapman, J., concurs in' opinion and judgment. Justices Whitfield and Brown not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.

Harrison v. Richter Jewelry Co., 194 So. 218, 141 Fla. 859, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 875 (Fla. 1940).

Pincite

194 So. 218 (Harrison v. Richter Jewelry Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.