ROY WILLIAMS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LILLIE MAE CHESSER ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-05-02
No. X-424
RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and MILLS, JJ., concur., RAWLS, C. J. and MILLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
314 So. 2d 594 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975)

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Janes v. Janes, 153 Fla. 716, 15 So. 2d 677 (1943); Section 689.10, Florida Statutes; and Chasteen v. Chasteen, 213 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App.1968).

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and MILLS, JJ., concur.

Other
PER CURIAM.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellants-defendants correctly urge that the Court’s per curiam opinion of 2 May 1975, affirming the trial court, mistakenly cites as authority Janes v. Janes, 153 Fla. 716, 15 So. 2d 677 (1943); Section 689.10, Florida Statutes; and Chasteen v. Chasteen, 213 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App.1968). However, the Court does not recede from its affirmance.

It is the Court’s opinion that the trial court’s judgment of partition correctly recites the findings of fact and the law applicable thereto.

Petition for rehearing denied.

RAWLS, C. J. and MILLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw