L. L. MIZELL
v.
REX SWEAT
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.
This case concerns the interpretation of a prior Florida Supreme Court opinion regarding a statute regulating livestock roaming at large. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding it correctly interpreted the prior ruling.
Yes, the Chancellor correctly interpreted the prior opinion. The statute was valid for livestock within Duval County but not for those straying from adjacent counties until fencing requirements were satisfied.
“In our view, the Chancellor correctly interpreted that opinion wherein we held'that Chapter 18510, Acts of 1937, was valid as to live stock roaming at large in Duval County but thát it was without effect as to any other county and could not be enforced as to live stock straying info Duval County from adjacent counties until the provisions of Section 15 relating to fencing was complied with.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the Chancellor's interpretation of the prior ruling and statute.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves the interpretation of the court's prior opinion in In Re Barber. The prior opinion held that Chapter 18510, Acts of 1937, was valid …
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.
— The material questions raised in this case turn on the interpretation of our opinion in the case of In Re Barber, 130 Fla. 342, 177 So. 708. In our view, the Chancellor correctly interpreted that opinion wherein we held'that Chapter 18510, Acts of 1937, was valid as to live stock roaming at large in Duval County but thát it was without effect as to any other county and could not be enforced as to live stock straying info Duval County from adjacent counties until the provisions of Section 15 relating to fencing was complied with.
Appellant contends- that the holding ,of the Chancellor should be reversed and relies on Markham v. Thomas, 107 Fla. 392, 144 So. 885; Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78, 129 So. 330; Motes v. Hagan, 101 Fla. 995, 132 So. 676, to support his contention.
We have examined these cases but do' not consider that they rule the case at bar. The controlling facts were different, so the judgment below must be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harris v. Baden, 154 Fla. 373 (Fla. 1944)
Authorities Cited
- Teuton v. Thomas, 100 Fla. 78 (Fla. 1930)
- Carter v. First Tr. & Sav. Bank, 107 Fla. 360 (Fla. 1932)
- In re Barber, 130 Fla. 342 (Fla. 1937)
- Markham v. Thomas, 107 Fla. 392 (Fla. 1932)