GULF POWER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
ILLINOIS-FLORIDA LAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION, GULF SECURITIES COMPANY, INC., A CORPORATION, AND E. H. ROBERTSON, DOING BUSINESS AS E. H. ROBERTSON & COMPANY, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's judgment based on a confession of errors by both parties, without ruling on the merits of the errors.
Yes, the judgment of the lower court is reversed based on the confession of errors filed by both parties.
“In this cause, defendants in error have filed a confession of errors and consent that the judgment below be reversed. Plaintiff in error has endorsed the confession of errors and consents that the judgment be reversed.”
Establishes the agreement between the parties to reverse the lower court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error (Gulf Power Company) and the defendants in error (Illinois-Florida Land Company, et al.) both agreed that the judgment of the l…
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.
In this cause, defendants in error have filed a confession of errors and consent that the judgment below be reversed. Plaintiff in error has endorsed the confession of errors and consents that the judgment be reversed.
In this view of the case, our conclusion is to reverse the judgment of the court below upon the "confession of errors” without expressing any opinion as to the extent of the error.- The Judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for such proceedings as are consistent with the law and rules of practice governing such causes. Clark v. Caldwell, 95 Fla. 754, 116 So. R. 632, Cameron v. Parker, 96 Fla. 389, 118 So. R. 423.
*1595Ordered and decreed accordingly.
Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
Whitfield, P.. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Indian Harbor Ests., Inc. v. Wagner, 148 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)…are consistent with the laws and rules of practice governing such cases. Clark v. Caldwell, 95 Fla. 754, 116 So. 632 (1928), Cameron v. Baker, Gieb & Schaub Motors, Inc., 96 Fla. 389, 118 So. 423 (1928), Gulf Power Co. v. Illinois-Florida Land Co., 100 Fla. 1594, 132 So. 109 (1931), and Evans v. Green, 138 Fla. 284, 189 So. 232 (1939). Ordered and decreed accordingly. CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JL, concur.…
-
Evans v. Green, 138 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1939)…ay be reversed in this Court without opinion as to the extent of error when the appellee files a confession of errors endorsed by the appellant consenting that an order of reversal be entered. See Gulf Power Co. v. Illinois-Florida Land Co., et al., 100 Fla. 1594, 132 Sou. 109; Clark v. Caldwell, 95 Fla. 754, 115 Sou. 632; Cameron v. Baker, Bieb & Schaub Motors, Inc., 96 Fla. 389, 118 Sou. 423. So the motion for judgment of reversal on confession of errors will be denied, unless the appellee within ten days…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. Millard F. Caldwell, 95 Fla. 754 (Fla. 1928)
- Cameron v. Baker, 96 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1928)