THEOPHILUS PASCOE AND DIXIE PASCOE, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
ARTHUR W. TOBIAS, AS TRUSTEE, APPELLEE
Per Curiam.
This cause having been submitted to the court at a former day of this term upon the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid, 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 adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed; it is further ordered that the appellee do have and recover of and from the appellants his costs by him in this behalf expended, which costs are taxed at the sum of $.........., all of which is ordered to be certified to the court below.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Fla. Motor Transp. Co. v. Hillman, 87 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1924)…tutes the basis of the seventh assignment of error. There was no error in that ruling. The plaintiff was not required to negative negligence upon his part; contributory negligence is a matter of defense. See Cooney-Eckstein Co. v. King, 69 Fla. 246, 67 South. Rep. 918; City of Orlando v. Heard, 29 Fla. 581, 11 South. Rep. 182. The order of the court striking the pleas of contributory negligence was not assigned as error; so that ruling is not reviewed. The case went to'trial on the plea of not guilty. [*517] At…
-
Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1926)…ce the present opinion does not purport to overrule the former opinion, but merely reaches a different conclusion in construing the same instrument, I dissent, without expressing any opinion on the merits. See First Nat'l. Bank v. Ulmer, 66 Fla. 68; 67 Sou. Rep. 918 Christopher v. Mengen, 66 Fla. 467 (478); 63 Sou. Rep. 923; Fairlie v. Scott, 102 Sou. Rep. 247. Ellis, J., concurs.…
-
Charlotte Harbor & N. Ry. Co. v. Truette, 81 Fla. 152 (Fla. 1921)…herefore unless the ruling was erroneous as to both pleas the assignment must fail. See Green v. Sansom, 41 Fla. 94, 25 South. Rep. 332; Daniel & Finley v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 54 Fla. 265, 44 South. Rep. 949; Cooney-Eckstein Co. v. King, 69 Fla. 246, 67 South. Rep. 918; Eaton v. Hopkins, 71 Fla. 615, 71 South. Rep. 922. The declaration alleges that the deceased was employed by the defendant as lineman to keep up its telephone system: used in connection with its road, and it was the defendant’s duty under its cont…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence