CRESCENT BEACH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAWYER, SURRENCY, CARTER AND KEEN, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR

Fla. | 1929-09-28
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
98 Fla. 529 Florida Supreme Court (1929) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

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.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ortiz v. Metro. Court of Dade Cnty., 25 Fla. Supp. 155 (Dade Cty. Cir. Ct. 1965)
    …a writ of prohibition. Lorenzo v. Murphy, 159 Fla. 639, 32 So. 2d 421; State, ex rel. Schwarz v. Heffernan, 142 Fla. 137, 194 So. 313; State, ex rel. Glass v. Sebring, 117 Fla. 788, 158 So. 446; State, ex rel. Florida W. & N. R. R. v. Chillingworth, 98 Fla. 529, 124 So. 20; State, ex rel. McCallum v. Smith, 32 Fla. 476, 14 So. 43. Even an erroneous solution of these matters by the defendant judge does not subject him to the issuance of a writ of prohibition, provided however, he has the requisite jurisdict…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw