Roes v. W. H. Armston Company, Inc.

Supreme Court of Florida

Roes v. W. H. Armston Company, Inc.

24 So. 2d 802, 157 Fla. 61, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 661

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided February 5, 1946·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After a careful review of this case, the majority of the Court are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476; Smith v. Burdine’s Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 189 So. 223, 131 A.L.R. 115 and the cases therein cited; Williams v. Sauls, 151 *62 Fla. 270, 9 So. (2nd) 369, and cases cited in the opinion in that case; Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Company, 152 Fla. 3, 10 So. (2nd) 488, and Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corporation, 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612.

Reversed and remanded.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur. TERRELL, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

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

PER CURIAM:

After a careful review of this case, the majority of the Court are of the opinion that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of Gravette v. Turner, 77 Fla. 311, 81 So. 476; Smith v. Burdine’s Inc., 144 Fla. 500, 189 So. 223, 131 A.L.R. 115 and the cases therein cited; Williams v. Sauls, 151 *62 Fla. 270, 9 So. (2nd) 369, and cases cited in the opinion in that case; Turner v. Modern Beauty Supply Company, 152 Fla. 3, 10 So. (2nd) 488, and Orr v. Avon Florida Citrus Corporation, 130 Fla. 306, 177 So. 612.

Reversed and remanded.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur. TERRELL, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., dissent.

Roes v. W. H. Armston Company, Inc., 24 So. 2d 802, 157 Fla. 61, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 661 (Fla. 1946).

Pincite

24 So. 2d 802 (Roes v. W. H. Armston Company, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related