NATIONAL CITY BANK OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BEULAH BAPTIST INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 affirmed a lower court's decree due to a divided court, where the justices could not agree on a reversal. The court cited previous cases to support its decision.
The court affirmed the decree because the justices were equally divided, with no majority able to agree on reversing the lower court's decision.
“In this case Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the decree appealed from should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that said decree should be reversed, and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the decree will be affirmed upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 So. R. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 So. R. 380, and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 So. R. 796; Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, 101 So. R. 37; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. 1107, 111 So. R. 110; Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935, 113 So. R. 94.”
This quote explains the division among the justices and the basis for affirming the decree.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves an appeal by National City Bank of Memphis, Tennessee, against Beulah Baptist Institutional Church. The specific facts leading to t…
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.
Per Curiam.
In this case Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Whitfield and Mr. Justice Brown are of the opinion that the decree appealed from should be affirmed, while Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Strum and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that said decree should be reversed, and there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the decree will be affirmed upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 So. R. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 So. R. 380, and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55, 100 So. R. 796; Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91, 101 So. R. 37; Broaddus v. Theurer, 92 Fla. 1107, 111 So. R. 110; Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935, 113 So. R. 94.
Decree affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- The State of Fla. ex rel. Hiram J. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224 (Fla. 1904)
- Quigg v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197 (Fla. 1923)
- Irwin A. Yarnell v. Gregory, 88 Fla. 91 (Fla. 1924)
- Pensacola Elec. Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1911)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Ernest Amos v. Hamwey, 87 Fla. 55 (Fla. 1924)
- Cravatt v. Pierson, 93 Fla. 935 (Fla. 1927)