ROBERT MUGGE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
TATE, JONES & COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, LIMITED, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR; ROBERT MUGGE, EMILIO PONS AND S. J. DRAWDY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, V. TATE, JONES & COMPANY OF LOUISIANA, LIMITED, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1906-01-01
51 Fla. 255 Florida Supreme Court (1906) Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

In these causes the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice COCKRELL and Mr. Justice WHITFIELD are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice TAYLOR, 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, 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.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Randall v. L'Engle, 52 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1906)
    …ircumstances, upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rept. 51; Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rept. 742; Holton v. Patterson, 49 Fla. 178, 38 South. Rep. 352, and Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co., 51 Fla. 255, 41 South. Rep. 603, an order will be entered affirming the decree. It is so ordered.…
  • Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Flotill Prods., Inc., 389 U.S. 179 (U.S. 1967)
    …166 (1870); Ayres v. Bensley, 32 Cal. 632 (1867). Another, in addition to dealing with the question of an equally divided court, involved a constitutional provision for the concurrence of a majority of the judges sitting. Mugge v. Tate, Jones & Co., 51 Fla. 255, 41 So. 603 (1906). The others are likewise not in point. Deglow v. Kruse, 57 Ohio St. 434, 49 N. E. 477 (1898) (two of three constitutes quorum, both must concur); Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Burchard, 35 Colo. 539, 558, 86 P. 749, 755 (1906) (constit…
  • Frischer & Co., Inc. v. Bakelite Corp., 39 F.2d 247 (C.C.P.A. 1930)
    …courts are concerned, it has been uniformly held, so far as we can ascertain, that a clear majority of all the legally constituted members thereof shall concur or no valid judgment may be entered except such as may follow no decision. Mugge v. Tate, 51 Fla. 255, 41 So. 603; Deglow v. Kruse, 57 Ohio St. 434, 49 N. E. 477; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Burchard, 35 Colo. 539, 86 P. 749, 9 Ann. Cas. 994; Madlem’s Appeal, 103 Pa. 584; Putnam v. Rees, 12 Ohio, 21; Northern R. R. v. Concord R. R., 50 N. H. 166; Johns…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw