Stewart v. Martin

128 So. 841, 99 Fla. 1249
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided June 2, 1930·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.

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

Stewart v. Martin, 128 So. 841, 99 Fla. 1249 (Fla. 1930).

128 So. 841 (Stewart v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight System Inc.
664 So. 2d 44 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
McMullen v. McMullen
145 So. 2d 568 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
Pittman v. Roberts
122 So. 2d 333 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
State Ex Rel. Dillman v. Tedder
166 So. 590 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Johnson v. Maddock
161 So. 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Hill v. Gratigny Plateau Development Corp.
52 F.2d 142 (Sixth Circuit, 1931)
Brogan v. Ferguson
131 So. 171 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1930)