J. W. CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE GULF FERTILIZER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
J. W. CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
THE GULF FERTILIZER COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
92 Fla. 999
Florida Supreme Court (1926)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This canse having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and upon 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 decreed by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doll Holloway v. State, 216 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…arco v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 674; Brockman v. Cochran, Fla.1961, 127 So. 2d 443; Johnson v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 124 So. 2d 488; Bowen v. Cochran, Fla.1960, 121 So. 2d 154; Clay v. State, 1940, 143 Fla. 204, 196 So. 462; James v. State, 1927, 92 Fla. 999, 111 So. 277; Pitts v. State, 1924, 88 Fla. 438, 102 So. 554. The record here shows that the official minutes of the court below established that when Holloway was tried, even though he was then only 17 years of age, his mother “was present and at…