Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys

61 Fla. 389
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided January 15, 1911·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having been considered by the court, and Mr. Chief Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Taylor and Mr. Justice Shackleford being of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Cockrell, Mr. Justice Hocker and Mr. Justice Parkhill 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, and it is so ordered.

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

Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911).

61 Fla. 389 (Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

National City Bank v. Beulah Baptist Institutional Church
122 So. 274 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1929)
Butler v. Jones
118 So. 684 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1928)
Jackson v. State
113 So. 382 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Cravatt v. Pierson
113 So. 94 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Johns and Ellzey v. Wilkerson
112 So. 891 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Broaddus v. Theurer
111 So. 110 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Stubblefield v. Wilson
102 So. 885 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Yarnell v. Gregory
101 So. 37 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Colman v. Macha
100 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Graham v. Randall
99 So. 559 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Auerback v. Cowart
87 Fla. 138 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey
100 So. 796 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1924)
Quigg v. Radel
97 So. 380 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Meier v. State
99 So. 124 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)