ST. LUCIE ESTATES, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
O. NOBLES, AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE SEMINOLE BANK, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
ST. LUCIE ESTATES, INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
O. NOBLES, AS LIQUIDATOR OF THE SEMINOLE BANK, A FLORIDA BANKING CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
106 Fla. 65
Florida Supreme Court (1932)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 141 So. 893
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record1 of the judgment herein and briefs rand 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 judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Woodruff, 134 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1938)…to prohibit such special sales in the city by those who are not identified with thfe reliable and responsible business enterprises that are established in the city. See Greenleaf v. Coleman, 117 Fla. 723, 158 So. 421. In State, ex rel., v. Mizell, 106 Fla. 65, 142 So. 824, there was no classification of itinerants from non-itinerants. This case is essentially unlike Ex parte Smith, 100 Fla. 1, 128 So. 864, and Hamilton v. Collins, 114 Fla. 276, 159 So. 201. In Roach v. Ephren, 82 Fla. 523, 90 So. 609,…