B. S. CATLETT AND A. H. WEST, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment in a case involving a bail bond, finding it identical in substance to a previously decided case. The only difference was the amount of the bail bond, which did not alter the outcome.
The court held that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, as the case presented no new legal issues or factual distinctions that would warrant a different outcome than the prior, similar case.
“The facts and proceedings and pleadings are the same as those in the case of E. E. West and W. J. Hildebrandt, Plaintiffs in Error vs. State of Florida, Defendant in Error, which is designated as case number one just decided by this Court.”
Establishes the factual and procedural similarity to a prior case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiffs in error, B. S. Catlett and A. H. West, were involved in a legal proceeding concerning a bail bond of Three Thousand Dollars. The facts…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Wilson, Circuit Judge.
The facts and proceedings and pleadings are the same as those in the case of E.
E. West and W.
J. Hildebrandt, Plaintiffs in Error vs. State of Florida, Defendant in Error, which is designated as case number one just decided by this Court. In that case the judgment of the lower court was affirmed. The only difference between that case and this one is that in this case, the plaintiffs in error are B.
S. Catlett and A.
H. West, and the amount of the bail bond in this case being Three Thousand Dollars, while it was Two Thousand Dollars in said case number one. The proceedings, pleadings and facts being, otherwise, the same as those involved in case number one, the judgment in this case is also affirmed at the cost of the Plaintiffs in Error. Browne, C. J., and Taylor, Whitfield and Ellis, J. J., concur. West, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. All Fla. Sur. Co., 59 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1952)…the appearance *851 bond and that the liability of a surety is not to be extended beyond the terms of his contract and to that extent he is bonded. West v. State, 75 Fla. 342, 78 So. 275, and West v. State, 75 Fla. 377, 78 So. 285; Catlett v. State, 75 Fla. 375, 78 So. 284; Gato v. Warrington, 37 Fla. 542, 19 So. 883; Jennings v. Landrum, 51 Fla. 643, 40 So. 195. Sections 903.31 and 909.05, are to some effect as these decisions. In our view, the statute and decisions cited in the preceding paragraph requi…