PAN AMERICAN WINDOW CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLYLE F. HAYES, WILLIAM H. DAY AND THOMAS E. LEE, JR., APPELLEES
PAN AMERICAN WINDOW CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
CARLYLE F. HAYES, WILLIAM H. DAY AND THOMAS E. LEE, JR., APPELLEES
112 So. 2d 52
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1959)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Having carefully reviewed the record and considered the point relied upon by appellant for reversal, and finding no reversible error, the judgment is
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., HORTON, J., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake Erie Chem. Co. v. Stinson, 181 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…utory appeal directed to jurisdiction. It is axiomatic that in ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must assume that the allegations of the complaint are true. Bobstein v. Splinter, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 560; Sompayrac v. Lewis, Fla.App.1959, 112 So. 2d 52. Appellant seeks to raise what amounts to a defense of identity of the parties in the face of an allegation that the “old” and “new” corporation are the same. We do not feel this may properly be raised or considered on a mo [*589] tion to dismiss. C…
-
Mangus v. Porter, 276 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…’s exercise of discretion is without any evidentiary basis and contravenes a positive rule of law. See Little v. Sullivan, Fla.1965, 173 So. 2d 135; All Florida Surety Company v. Vann, Fla.App.1961, 128 So. 2d 768; Sompayrac v. Lewis, Fla. App.1959, 112 So. 2d 52. In the case at bar, the undisputed evidence reveals that at the time of the filing of the complaint, the appellant had waived the requirement for inspection and had tendered the full purchase price set forth in the contract. This action removed the…