H. L. SUDDUTH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ST. ANDREWS BAY COMMUNITY HOTEL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1930-01-28
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
99 Fla. 151 Florida Supreme Court (1930) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

[*152] Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and brief and argument of counsel for the respective parties, we have examined the record and find that the questions raised are analogous to those raised in Bryan v. St. Andrews Bay Community Hotel Corporation, decided at this term, so the judgment of the lower court is affirmed on authority of that case.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • S & T Anchorage, Inc. v. Lewis, 575 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …individual rights. Because the Association is a corporation, it may not act in any way not authorized in its articles of incorporation or bylaws. Randall v. Mickle, 103 Fla. 1229, 138 So. 14 (1931); Sudduth v. St. Andrews Bay Community Hotel Corp., 99 Fla. 151, 126 So. 302 (1930). The articles and bylaws must be consistent with the provisions of the superior document, the Declaration. See Roth v. Springlake II Homeowners Ass’n, 533 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (approval of each and every lot owner was r…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw