Howard v. the Federal Land Bank of Columbia

Supreme Court of Florida

Howard v. the Federal Land Bank of Columbia

168 So. 24, 124 Fla. 248

DecidedMay 6, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 168 So. 24 (Howard v. the Federal Land Bank of Columbia) 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

Howard v. the Federal Land Bank of Columbia, 168 So. 24, 124 Fla. 248 (Fla. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cas'e is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal. An examination of the record and consideration of briefs filed by the respective parties discloses that there was no error in the order of 'the Chancellor striking portions of the answer interposed from which order the appeal was taken. The parts of the answer which were stricken constituted no defense to the action and, therefore, the order should be affirmed. We have not overlooked the fact that the appellants’ solicitors have filed request for oral argument in this case. We have inspected the record and considered the briefs and it is clearly apparent to the Court, that there is no merit in the assignments of error. Therefore, the request for oral argument is denied and the order appealed from is affirmed.

*249 So ordered.

Whitfield', C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cas'e is before us on motion to dismiss the appeal. An examination of the record and consideration of briefs filed by the respective parties discloses that there was no error in the order of 'the Chancellor striking portions of the answer interposed from which order the appeal was taken. The parts of the answer which were stricken constituted no defense to the action and, therefore, the order should be affirmed. We have not overlooked the fact that the appellants’ solicitors have filed request for oral argument in this case. We have inspected the record and considered the briefs and it is clearly apparent to the Court, that there is no merit in the assignments of error. Therefore, the request for oral argument is denied and the order appealed from is affirmed.

*249 So ordered.

Whitfield', C. J., and Ellis, Brown, Buford, and Davis, J. J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 So. 24, 124 Fla. 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-the-federal-land-bank-of-columbia-fla-1936.