ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. GREGORY AND M. M. GREGORY, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
ARMOUR FERTILIZER WORKS, APPELLANT,
J. H. GREGORY AND M. M. GREGORY, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
106 Fla. 85
Florida Supreme Court (1932)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 142 So. 824
Cited by 1 case
Opinion of the Court
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Woodruff, 134 Fla. 437 (Fla. 1938)…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, the ordinance…