JOHN T. MCMICHAEL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL H. ECKMAN AND ABRAM VETSBURG, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF ECKMAN & VETSBURG, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. ASSUMPSIT
JOHN T. MCMICHAEL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
SAMUEL H. ECKMAN AND ABRAM VETSBURG, PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF ECKMAN & VETSBURG, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR. ASSUMPSIT
41 Fla. 337
Florida Supreme Court (1899)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
This action was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff m error. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant takes writ of error. Writ of error dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. The Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 52 Fla. 646 (Fla. 1906)…t and unreasonable; so it cannot be said that the enforcement of the order will be a taking of the property of the respondent without due process of law, or will reprive it of the equal protection of the laws. See State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 337, 27 South. Rep. 225. The rights of the respondent under the contract which was made in 1902, are subject to the constitutional and statutory provisions above quoted, and the enforcement of the order of the Railroad Commissioners will not violate va…