State Ex Rel. Brosnaham v. Cone

Supreme Court of Florida

State Ex Rel. Brosnaham v. Cone

196 So. 869, 143 Fla. 4, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1149

Supreme Court of Florida·Decided May 17, 1940·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The record and the briefs in this case have been examined. Two questions are argued but in their last analysis we see nothing but an urge to recede from our opinion in State ex rel. Proctor, et al., v. Cone, et al., 141 Fla. 606, 193 So. 753, and make a special rule for Escambia County. We are not convinced that this should be done so the motion to strike replication is granted and the motion and demurrer to the answer are overruled.

It is so ordered.

Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, P. J., Buford, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

The record and the briefs in this case have been examined. Two questions are argued but in their last analysis we see nothing but an urge to recede from our opinion in State ex rel. Proctor, et al., v. Cone, et al., 141 Fla. 606, 193 So. 753, and make a special rule for Escambia County. We are not convinced that this should be done so the motion to strike replication is granted and the motion and demurrer to the answer are overruled.

It is so ordered.

Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, P. J., Buford, Chapman, and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., not participating.

State Ex Rel. Brosnaham v. Cone, 196 So. 869, 143 Fla. 4, 1940 Fla. LEXIS 1149 (Fla. 1940).

Pincite

196 So. 869 (State Ex Rel. Brosnaham v. Cone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related