ACME FRUIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
CROWN PAPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
ACME FRUIT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
CROWN PAPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
106 Fla. 294
Florida Supreme Court (1932)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 143 So. 220
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 judgment 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 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.
Affirmed.
Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Brown, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hiram Cazes Parnell v. State, 204 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…the affiant’s statement that he believed or had reason to believe that the listed stolen goods were on those premises. Carnagio v. State, 106 Fla. 222, 143 So. 164; Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217; [*912] Lassiter v. State, 106 Fla. 261, 143 So. 220; Sleigh v. State, 106 Fla. 261, 143 So. 220; Adkison v. State, 106 Fla. 262, 143 So. 220. In Cooper v. State, supra, 143 So. at p. 218, the Supreme Court stated: “ * * * We take it that the provisions quoted from section 8518, C.G.L., supra, [now…1 / 3