James v. Mach

100 So. 271, 87 Fla. 417
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 22, 1924·Published

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

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

100 So. 271 (James v. Mach) — 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)
Quigg v. Radel
97 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Griffith v. Alcocke
37 So. 47 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1904)