E. K. LUMPKIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE MAULE OJUS ROCK COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
E. K. LUMPKIN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
THE MAULE OJUS ROCK COMPANY, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
101 Fla. 64
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 133 So. 853
Cited by 18 cases
Opinion of the Court
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.
Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Custer v. State, 159 Fla. 574 (Fla. 1947)…vil and criminal cases we are committed to the rule that a fundamental error may be reviewed though not assigned. Gover v. Braddock, 100 Fla. 1406, 131 So. 407; White v. Crandall, 105 Fla. 70, 137 So. 272; East Coast Stores v. Cuthbert, 101 Fla. 25, 133 So. 853; Bynum v. State of Florida, 76 Fla. 618, 80 So. 572. In the latter case the judgment was reversed for failure to grant a motion for new trial even though the error was not assigned. Gunn v. State of Florida, 78 Fla. 599, 83 So. 511, in this case th…
-
Devlin v. THE Phoenix, Inc., 471 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ment interest in land and is required by statutes1 to be in writing; otherwise an easement can only be created by prescription.2 A sale or conveyance of property to which a license has been granted effectively revokes the license. See Roux v. Houk, 101 Fla. 64, 133 So. 853 (1931); Burdine v. Sewell, 92 Fla. 375, 109 So. 648 (1926); High v. Jasper Mfg. Co., 57 Fla. 437, 49 So. 156 (1909). When Mr. Murcia conveyed title to the business complex to the present owners, his implied license to the present lessee…
-
Wilson Cypress Co. v. Stevens, 106 Fla. 717 (Fla. 1932)…wthon vs. Stearns-Culver Lumber Co., 60 Fla. 313, 53 So. 738; Fletcher vs. Moriarty, 62 Fla. 482, 56 So. 437; Cummer Co. vs. Yeager, 75 Fla. 729, 79 So. 272; Livingston et al. vs. Drew Lumber Co., 82 Fla. 508, 90 So. 466; Roux vs. Houk, 101 Fla. 64, 133 So. 853. But it is equally well established that because such an agreement is so unreasonable in its nature, no conveyance will be construed as granting a perpetual right to enter [*721] upon and cut and remove timber from the land of another unless it is…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence