B. C. SKINNER AND LAMONT MYERS, AS TRUSTEES OF CHANDLER-DAVIS COMPANY, A DISSOLVED CORPORATION; AND CHANDLER-DAVIS, INC., A CORPORATION,
v.
A. R. SURLES, JR., AND PAULINE S. SURLES, HIS WIFE, AND CITY OF LAKELAND

Fla. | 1943-07-30
BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, ADAMS and SE-BRING, JJ., concur., CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent., BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur., BROWN, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.
153 Fla. 769 Florida Supreme Court (1943) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 16 So. 2d 164
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

The record in this case having been duly considered and no reversible error appearing, the decree is affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, ADAMS and SE-BRING, JJ., concur.

CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

A rehearing having been granted in this cause and the case having been further considered upon the record and upon briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties; it is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court that the opinion and judgment of this Court filed in this cause on July 30, 1943 affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Polk County be and is Hereby reaffirmed and adhered to on rehearing.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

BROWN, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.

Other
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

A rehearing having been granted in this cause and the case having been further considered upon the record and upon briefs and oral argument of counsel for the respective parties; it is thereupon ordered and adjudged by the Court that the opinion and judgment of this Court filed in this cause on July 30, 1943 affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court for Polk County be and is Hereby reaffirmed and adhered to on rehearing.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur. BROWN, CHAPMAN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Alday, 182 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1966)
    …n the Idaho case of In re Batt [66 Idaho 188, 157 P. 2d 547], the court held that whether employees are engaged in ‘agricultural labor’ depends on the type of employees’ service and not on the employer’s occupation. “In Tison v. Hyer, et al., 1944 [153 Fla. 769], 16 So. 2d 437, the Florida Supreme Court held that, ‘in omitting the words “and horticultural” from the 1941 Act, the legislature merely intended to embrace .all such activities under the head of “agricultural labor” * * *,’ thereby eliminating a…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw