E. C. WORRELL AND H. L. WILEY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
THEODORE A. ERCK AND GEORGE H. ERCK, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
E. C. WORRELL AND H. L. WILEY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
THEODORE A. ERCK AND GEORGE H. ERCK, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
108 Fla. 221
Florida Supreme Court (1933)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 146 So. 659
Cited by 10 cases
Opinion of the Court
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 *222is 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.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Evans, 132 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…ine of estoppel as a result of silence when common honesty and fair dealing demanded that a person estopped should have spoken. Hollingsworth v. Handcock, 1856, 7 Fla. 338; Nichols v. Bodenwein, 107 Fla. 25, 146 So. 86, rehearing denied 107 Fla. 25, 146 So. 659; United Service Corp. v. Vi-An Const. Corp., Fla., 77 So. 2d 800. An estoppel which would have bound the decedent binds the personal representa [*482] tives of his estate. Strickland v. Peters, 5 Cir., 120 F. 2d 53. And so with the heirs of a deceas…
-
Sutton v. Smith, 603 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…oint venture are bound by the actions of one of the members, provided that such member’s actions relate to the joint venture and do not exceed the scope of his authority. Nichols v. Bodenwein, 107 Fla. 25, 146 So. 86 (1932), reh’g den., 107 Fla. 25, 146 So. 659 (1933); McKissick v. Bilger, 480 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Summers v. Hoffman, 69 N.W. 2d 198 (Mich.1955); Davidson v. State, 201 N.W. 2d 296 (Mich.Ct.App.1972). See also Kelly v. State, 597 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (Law is well establish…
-
McKISSICK v. Bilger, 480 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…— represented to the law firm that he was speaking not only for himself, but also on behalf of the three appellants. The court, in finding the existence of a joint venture, relied upon Nichols v. Bodenwein, 107 Fla. 25,146 So. 86 (1932), reh. den., 146 So. 659 (1933), holding that all joint adventurers are bound by the actions of one or more of the joint adventurers, provided that the contracting joint adventurer does not exceed the scope of his authority. See also Proctor v. Hearne, 100 Fla. 1180, 131 So…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence