Randall v. L'Engle

52 Fla. 594
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 15, 1906·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this case Mr. Chief Justice Shackle-ford, the Honorable John W. Malone, Circuit Judge, sitting in the place of Mr. Justice Cockrell,disqualified, and Mr. Justice Whitfield are of the opinion that the decree should be reversed, while Mr. Justice Taylor, Mr. Justice Hockior and Mr. Justice Parkhill are of the opinion that the decree should be affirmed. Under these [595]*595circumstances, upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rept. 51; Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rept. 742; Holton v. Patterson, 49 Fla. 178, 38 South. Rep. 352, and Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co., 51 Fla. 255, 41 South. Rep. 603, an order will be entered affirming the decree. It is so ordered.

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

Randall v. L'Engle, 52 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1906).

52 Fla. 594 (Randall v. L'Engle) — 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)
Commercial Bank v. Towers
48 Fla. 250 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Holton v. Patterson
49 Fla. 178 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1905)
Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co.
51 Fla. 255 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1906)