MIAMI FISHERIES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL P. CATES, JR., BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SAMUEL P. CATES, SR., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
MIAMI FISHERIES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
SAMUEL P. CATES, JR., BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, SAMUEL P. CATES, SR., DEFENDANT IN ERROR
85 Fla. 457
Florida Supreme Court (1923)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein, and briefs 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 judgment; 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
-
Baker v. Vero Indian River Producers Ass'n, 124 Fla. 323 (Fla. 1936)…935, as heretofore stated, while the supersedeas was not perfected until the 7th day of December, 1935. So it appears that the court on December 4th, 1935, had jurisdiction to enter order confirming sale and deficiency judgment. See Priest v. Hogan, 85 Fla. 457, 96 So. 408. There is nothing in the record to show any abuse of discretion by the lower court in entering the order confirming sale and the deficiency judgment at the time same was entered. For the reasons stated, the decree and orders appealed f…
-
Tippins v. Belle Mead Dev. Corp., 136 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1935)…question raised by this first assignment of error is controlled by Section 4960-4962, C. G. L. 1927. Futch v. Adams, 47 Fla. 257, 36 Sou. 575; Williams v. Black, 73 Fla. 309, 74 Sou. 312; Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 Sou. 768; Priest v. Hogan, 85 Fla. 457, 96 Sou. 408; Mitchell v. Mason, 61 Fla. 692, 55 Sou. 387; Reed v. Cromer, 86 Fla. 390, 98 Sou. 329. There was no order superseding the interlocutory order of September 27, 1932, appointing the receiver. Priest v. Hogan, supra. On April 12th, 1934,…