Ulrich, Et Ux. v. Reineking
198 So. 74, 144 Fla. 284
Opinions
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the final decree, 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 final decree; it is therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said final decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ulrich, Et Ux. v. Reineking, 198 So. 74, 144 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1940).
198 So. 74 (Ulrich, Et Ux. v. Reineking) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Trimble v. Hart
177 So. 710 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1937)
Holder v. West Florida Development & Investment Co.
137 So. 271 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1931)
Biscayne Realty & Insurance v. Ostend Realty Co.
148 So. 560 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1933)
Speisberger v. Newman Realty Co.
169 So. 859 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Scott v. City of Venice
167 So. 654 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1936)
Fisher v. Parker
112 So. 62 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1927)
Griffing, Et Vir. v. Griffing
163 So. 141 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1935)
Clark & Lewis, Inc. v. Gardner
109 So. 192 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1926)
Tate v. Pensacola, Gulf, Land & Development Co.
37 Fla. 439 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1896)
Williams v. Bailey
67 So. 877 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1915)