THEO BAARS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ALGER-SULLIVAN LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
Per Curiam.
This cause having been heretofore submitted to the Court upon the transcript' of the record of the judgment aforesaid, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the cause having been re-argued by counsl for the respective parties pursuant to a rehearing granted by the Court, and the Court having again considered the record and 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 Court of Record be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
Taylor, Whitfield, Ellis and West, J. J., concur. Browne, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hassey v. Williams, 127 Fla. 734 (Fla. 1937)…to render her incapable of comprehending the nature and effect of the transaction. Clarke v. Hartt, 56 Fla. 775, 47 So. 819; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. 762; Baars v. Alger Sullivan Lumber Co., 81 Fla. 308, 87 So. 918. The amended bill of complaint does not charge or rely on insanity or mental incapacity to overthrow the deed, the evidence does not support insanity and in fact we find nothing in the record to support the defence of insanity [*739] ex…
-
Wise v. Wilba Belle Wise, 134 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1938)…to render her incapable of comprehending the nature and effect of the transaction. Clarke v. Hartt, 56 Fla. 775, 47 So. 819; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. 762; Baars v. Alger-Sullivan Lumber Co., 81 Fla. 308, 87 So. 918.” Hassey v. Williams, 127 Fla. 734, 174 So. 9. The chancellor found that this burden of proof had not been successfully met. In fact the appellant practically admits in his brief that there was not sufficient evidence to support the bil…
-
Tyler v. Tyler, 108 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…to render her incapable of comprehending the nature and effect of the transaction. Clarke v. Hartt, 56 Fla. 775, 47 So. 819; Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97; Travis v. Travis, 81 Fla. 309, 87 So. 762; Baars v. Alger-Sullivan Lumber Co., 81 Fla. 308, 87 So. 918.” In Chisman v. Moylan, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So. 2d 186, 190, Chief Judge Kanner, in discussing the weight which should be given the determination of the trial judge, said: “The witnesses were all before the chancellor who personally hea…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence