H. A. THOMAS AND HIS WIFE, S. E. THOMAS, APPELLANTS,
v.
INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
H. A. THOMAS AND HIS WIFE, S. E. THOMAS, APPELLANTS,
INVESTMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
83 Fla. 400
Florida Supreme Court (1922)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the decree aforesaid 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.
All concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deeb v. State, 131 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1937)…mmitted in that county, and there was a Criminal Court of Record in Escambia County having jurisdiction of non-capital felonies. There is now a Court of Record in Escambia County having jurisdiction of all non-capital felonies. See Holland v. State, 83 Fla. 400, 91 So. 379. Except by forbidding the passage of special or local laws “providing for change of venue ,in civil or criminal cases,” the Constitution of Florida does not provide for or regulate [*371] proceedings for a change of venue; but the Const…
-
Champlin v. Cochran, 125 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1960)…ner now contends that the requirement of the oath is essential to the validity of an information and that an unsworn information could not possibly sustain a conviction. To support his claim the petitioner relies-on a statement in Holland v. State, 83 Fla. 400, 91 So. 379. This Court did make reference to Section 10 of the Declaration-of Rights as it read prior to its amendment in 1934. The opinion stated that this section constituted an organic command and' not merely a waiveable constitutional right. Th…