Martin v. Walking Lumber & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Martin v. Walking Lumber & Supply Co.

113 So. 714, 94 Fla. 208

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided July 13, 1927·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The transcript of the record in this case having been examined and considered by the Court, it is found that the decree herein should be affirmed, except as to that pdrt of the decree allowing attorney’s fees, which should be reversed, and the costs'of the appeal should be taxed against the complainant on authority of the opinion in the case of Kate Havlin Martin et al. v. Rother, decided at this term of the Court, and it is so ordered.

Reversed in part.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

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

Per Curiam.

The transcript of the record in this case having been examined and considered by the Court, it is found that the decree herein should be affirmed, except as to that pdrt of the decree allowing attorney’s fees, which should be reversed, and the costs'of the appeal should be taxed against the complainant on authority of the opinion in the case of Kate Havlin Martin et al. v. Rother, decided at this term of the Court, and it is so ordered.

Reversed in part.

Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur. Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion.

Martin v. Walking Lumber & Supply Co., 113 So. 714, 94 Fla. 208 (Fla. 1927).

Pincite

113 So. 714 (Martin v. Walking Lumber & Supply Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.