COMMERCIAL BANK, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES R. TOWERS AND HARVEY L. FOWLER, PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF TOWERS HARDWARE COMPANY, THE JACKSONVILLE LOAN & INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, J. R. EDDINS, W. H. MANN AND S. A. MCCOTTERY, LATE PARTNERS AS MANN & MCCOTTERY, AND D. A. ANDREU, APPELLEES
COMMERCIAL BANK, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
CHARLES R. TOWERS AND HARVEY L. FOWLER, PARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF TOWERS HARDWARE COMPANY, THE JACKSONVILLE LOAN & INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, J. R. EDDINS, W. H. MANN AND S. A. MCCOTTERY, LATE PARTNERS AS MANN & MCCOTTERY, AND D. A. ANDREU, APPELLEES
48 Fla. 250
Florida Supreme Court (1904)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER Curiam.
In this cause the Chief-Justice, Mr. Justice Cockrell and Mr. Justice Shackleford are of opinion that the decrees appealed from should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Hocicer, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Carter are of the opinion that they should be reversed. Under these circumstances, upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51, an order will be entered affirming the decrees from which the appeal was taken, at the cost of appellant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marshall v. C. S. Young Constr. Co., 94 Fla. 11 (Fla. 1927)…ent that the delay in enforcing the right has brought about any condition disadvantageous to the defendant; besides it sets forth nothing but what appears on the face of the bill. See Keen v. Brown, 46 Fla. 487, 35 South. Rep. 401; Dekle v. Barkley, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 581. The plea was bad because of the defects pointed out and it was properly overruled. The objection should have been made by demurrer. The order overruling the plea and requiring the defendant to answer the bill of complaint is m…
-
Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692 (Fla. 1911)…gnment of error predicated upon this order cannot therefore, be considered, more than six months having elapsed between the entry of said order and the appeal therefrom. Futch v. Adams Bros., 47 Fla. 257, 36 [*694] South. Rep. 575; Dekle v. Barkley, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 581; Mattair v. Furchgott, 44 Fla. 620, 32 South. Rep. 925; Ray v. Frank, 44 Fla. 681, 32 South. Rep. 925; Steinburg. v. Richbourg, 45 Fla. 589, 33 South. Rep. 521. In the order overruling the demurrer to the bill, the court granted…
-
Mugge v. Tate, 51 Fla. 255 (Fla. 1906)…Mr. Justice HOOKER and Mr. Justice PARKHILL are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Under these circumstances, upon the authority of the State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla, 224, [*256] 37 South. Rep. 51; Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 742, and Holton v. Patterson, 49 Fla. 178, 38 South. Rep. 352, a judgment will be entered in each of the above styled cause affirming the judgments to which the writs of error were taken. It is so ordered.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)