James v. Mach

Supreme Court of Florida

James v. Mach

100 So. 271, 87 Fla. 417

DecidedApril 22, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 100 So. 271 (James v. Mach) 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

James v. Mach, 100 So. 271, 87 Fla. 417 (Fla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having been considered by the Court, and Mr. Chief Justice Taylor, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne being of opinion that the judgment should be' reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West, and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that the 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; Quigg, Chief of Police v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380, and it is so ordered.

All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause having been considered by the Court, and Mr. Chief Justice Taylor, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne being of opinion that the judgment should be' reversed, while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice West, and Mr. Justice Terrell are of opinion that the 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; Quigg, Chief of Police v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380, and it is so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 So. 271, 87 Fla. 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-mach-fla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack