JAMES N. MORRISON, CLYDE L. MORRISON AND ANGUS MORRISON, CO-PARTNERS TRADING AND OPERATING AS MORRISON BROTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
J. E. VAUSE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
JAMES N. MORRISON, CLYDE L. MORRISON AND ANGUS MORRISON, CO-PARTNERS TRADING AND OPERATING AS MORRISON BROTHERS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
J. E. VAUSE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
102 Fla. 879
Florida Supreme Court (1931)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 136 So. 608
Cited by 2 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 Whitfield and Davis, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunn v. State, 133 Fla. 355 (Fla. 1938)…aker. The witnesses for the State identified Baker with operating the gambling room and not the defendant Dunn. We'think the motion for a directed verdict for the defendant Dunn should have'been granted. In the case of Cannon v. State, 102 Fla. 928, 136 So. 608, the Court considered the question of directing a verdict in a criminal case and said: “As will be noted by a reference to the foregoing statute, the Legislature has now provided that if after all the evidence shall have been submitted on behalf of…