H. T. ARMINGTON, W. H. ARMINGTON AND H. R. ARMINGTON, AS CO-PARTNERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
W. A. DEMPSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
H. T. ARMINGTON, W. H. ARMINGTON AND H. R. ARMINGTON, AS CO-PARTNERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
W. A. DEMPSEY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
77 Fla. 160
Florida Supreme Court (1919)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
— This cause having been submitted to the the Court at a former term upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 judment; 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.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edwards v. The Baldwin Piano Co., 79 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1920)…ll Mfg. Co. v. Walker, 22 Fla. 412; Dannelly v. Russ, 54 Fla. 285, 45 South Rep. 496; Onyx Soda Fountain Co. v. L’Engle, 53 Fla. 314, 43 South. Rep. 771. and that there is an exception to this general [*151] rule is recognized. Armington v. Dempsey, 77 Fla. 160, 81 South. Rep. 111; Chancy v. Lanier, 76 Fla. 443, 80 South. Rep. 312; American Process Co. v. Florida White Pressed Brick Co., 56 Fla. 116, 47 South. Rep. 942. The rule in cases of conditional sales as laid down by Cyc. 680-681 is approved, as fo…