GABRIELLA MAYS, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
v.
CARRIE D. WHITE AND A. W. WHITE, HER HUSBAND, ANNETTA MAY HOLMES AND WILLIAM HOLMES, HER HUSBAND, MAMIE H. SMITH AND W. H. SMITH, HER HUSBAND, GABRIELLA E. PLAIR AND S. MEANS PLAIR, HER HUSBAND, THEODORE H. MAYS AND GEORGE H. MAYS, JR., APPELLEES
GABRIELLA MAYS, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
CARRIE D. WHITE AND A. W. WHITE, HER HUSBAND, ANNETTA MAY HOLMES AND WILLIAM HOLMES, HER HUSBAND, MAMIE H. SMITH AND W. H. SMITH, HER HUSBAND, GABRIELLA E. PLAIR AND S. MEANS PLAIR, HER HUSBAND, THEODORE H. MAYS AND GEORGE H. MAYS, JR., APPELLEES
85 Fla. 150
Florida Supreme Court (1923)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 95 So. 299
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This is a suit between a widow and children involving the homestead of the deceased owner. In the brief of counsel for appellant it is stated that the ‘ ‘ only-question presented by this case is the question as to what the widow as widow is entitled to.” The widow is the sole appellant. Motion is made by counsel for appellees to dismiss the case on the ground that the question has become moot because of the death of the widow, the sole appellant, and proof of her death accompanies the motion.
The motion to dismiss will be granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)…o show Capo’s involvement or interest in the case was surely harmless, as these matters were substantially put before the jury through the direct and cross-examination of Capo as well as the testimony of other witnesses. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Danford v. State, 53 Fla. 4, 43 So. 593 (1907). Finally, even if we were to consider the argument appellant presents, that the court’s sustaining the objection deprived him of the opportunity to develop a viable defense theory, we would fin…
-
Young v. State, 85 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1923)…is for the purpose of ascertaining 'whether the “error complained of” has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Charges given may be “complained of” by being-excepted to when given or embodied in a motion for new trial. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 South. Rep. 299; Bynum v. State, 46 Fla. 142, 35 South. Rep. 65, §2700 Rev. Gen. Stats. Errors contained in charges given but not objected to are waived. Errors waived are not complained of.” The “Harmless Error” statute (§2812 Rev. Gen. Stats.) does not repeal Sec…
-
Hoover v. State, 212 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…as not brought these photographs up in the record on appeal. Generally, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict cannot be considered on appeal where the exhibits introduced are not made a part of the record. Steele v. State, 85 Fla. 57, 95 So. 299 (1923); Belfield v. Lochner, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So. 2d 668. It is axiomatic that an Appellate Court will not reverse a finding of fact by the lower court unless the error is patent on the record. Mixon v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 190. For the abov…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence