Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co.

51 Fla. 255
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 15, 1906·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In these causes the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice COCKRELL and Mr. Justice WHITFIELD are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice TAYLOR, Mr. Justice HOOKER and Mr. Justice PARKHILL are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Under these circumstances, upon the authority of the State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla, 224, [256]*25637 South. Rep. 51; Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 742, and Holton v. Patterson, 49 Fla. 178, 38 South. Rep. 352, a judgment will be entered in each of the above styled cause affirming the judgments to which the writs of error were taken. It is so ordered.

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

Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co., 51 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1906).

51 Fla. 255 (Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roofing Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Palmer
502 P.2d 1327 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972)
Federal Trade Commission v. Flotill Products, Inc.
389 U.S. 179 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corporation
39 F.2d 247 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1930)
Randall v. L'Engle
52 Fla. 594 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1906)