J. J. ZORN
v.
ARTHUR JAMES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded a judgment based on a stipulation between parties, aligning this case with a companion case decided the same day.
Yes, the court held that the judgment should abide the result of the companion case due to the stipulation.
“In this case it was stipulated by the parties that inasmuch as both the defendants in error had been injured in the same collision, that the same judgment should be entered in this case as is entered in the companion case.”
Establishes the basis for the court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved two defendants who were injured in the same collision. The parties stipulated that the judgment in this case should be the same as …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Stipulation Of Parties cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause is a companion case to that of J. J. Zorn, etc., v. T. J. Britton, this day decided. In this case it was stipulated by the parties that inasmuch as both the defendants in error had been injured in the same collision, that the same judgment should be entered in this case as is entered in the companion case. See State ex rel. Attorney General v. Slocum, 38 Fla. 407, 21 Sou. Rep. 1028.
On the authority of the stipulation and decision referred to, it is' ordered that the judgment in this case abide the result in Zorn v. Britton, supra, and that said judgment be reversed for a new trial, and remanded' for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion filed in the companion case.
Reversed for new trial.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Silver Pines P'rs Ltd. v. The Resolution Tr. Corp., 588 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…07, Florida Statutes. See Dixie Music Co. v. Pike, 135 Fla. 671, 185 So. 441 (1938); Bochterle v. Florida Milk Co., 132 Fla. 827, 182 So. 215 (1938); Smith v. State Life Insurance Co., 114 Fla. 371, 153 So. 842 (1934); Smith v. Taylor, 112 Fla. 597, 150 So. 803 (1933); Pasco v. Gamble, 15 Fla. 562 (1876); Overseas Dev. Inc. v. Krause, 323 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert, denied, 336 So. 2d 107 (Fla.1976). See also, Chapman v. Chapman, 526 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Annot., Appointment of Receivers…
-
Smith v. State Life Ins. Co., 114 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1934)…a receiver of hotel property in a proceeding brought to foreclose a mortgage on such property. [*372] The order appealed from should be affirmed on authority of Smith, as Liquidator, v. Taylor, Receiver, opinion filed November 10, 1933 and reported 150 Sou. 803, although it is not shown that outstanding tax liens are about to be foreclosed. The bill does allege that taxes for 1931 and 1932 are delinquent and unpaid and that the property was in .great need of repair to prevent material deterioration. The e…
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Attorney-General v. Slocum, 38 Fla. 407 (Fla. 1896)