IRWIN A. YARNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
J. H. GREGORY, APPELLEE
Per Curiam.
In this ease the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Terrell are of the opinion that the decree entered by the trial court from which the appeal is taken should be affirmed, AArhile Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Browne and Mr. Justice West are of the opinion that said decree should be reversed; and, there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the decree should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 South Rep. 796.
An order will be entered affirming the decree herein.
All Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Dowling v. Nicholson, 135 So. 288 (Fla. 1931)…ly superseded in this class of cases by the Statute of 1921 (Senate Bill No. 131, 1921 Session, Par. 5, Pleas in Actions for Wrongs Independent of Contracts, Sections 4332, 4333, C.G.L.) as we held in Croisant v. DeSoto Improvement Co., 87 Fla. 530, 101 So. 37, it is nevertheless the duty of the plaintiff in a common law action for damages to sufficiently prove the "breach of duty" or the "wrongful act" alleged by showing, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that it was the defendantwho caused th…
-
Anderson Mild & Lumber Co. v. Clements, 101 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1931)…iod from a day named, we exclude the first day of the period and include the last. He was therefore within the rule. Savage vs. State 18 Fla. 970; Simmons vs. Hanne 50 Fla. 267, 39 So. 77, 7 Ann. Cas. 322; Croissant vs. De Soto Imp. Co. 87 Fla. 530, 101 So. 37. The next question pressed for our solution is whether or not plaintiff in error is entitled to have his lien enforced against all the land embraced in the description contained in his notice of lien as filed and recorded. It is alleged that the l…
-
Barney Nash v. Vaughn, 133 Fla. 499 (Fla. 1938)…s case, that provision has been complied with.” The Florida Rule for computation of time generally is Common Law Practice Rule 5. See also Anderson Mill and Lbr. Co. v. Clements, 101 Fla. 523, 134 So. 588; Croissant v. DeSoto Imp. Co., 87 Fla. 530, 101 So. 37; Simmons & Capen v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 So. 77; Savage & James v. State, 18 Fla. 970. As it is pointed out in Vol. 2, McQuillin’s Municipal Corporation, 2nd Ed., page 634: “The purpose of requiring the ordinance to be read at more than one sess…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)
- Quigg v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1923)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ernest Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1924)