SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
D. J. HARMON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Fla. | 1930-02-27
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur., Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
99 Fla. 390 Florida Supreme Court (1930) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The judgment rendered for the defendant in error' herein is reversed on authority of Tampa & Gulf Coast R. Co. v. Lynch, 91 Fla. 375, 108 So. R. 560; Southern Ry. Co. v. Mann, 91 Fla. 948, 108 So. R. 889; Germak v. Fla. E. C. Ry., 95 Fla. 991, 117 So. R. 391; S. A. L. Ry. v. Myrick, 91 Fla. 918, 109 So. R. 193; Fla. E. C. Ry. v. Davis, 96 Fla. 171, 117 So. R. 841; W. & A. Ry. v. Henderson, 279 U. S. 639, 73 L. Ed. 884.

Reversed.

Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur. Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Mish, 99 Fla. 1246 (Fla. 1930)
    …d also failed to show that the camera was so located as to fairly reproduce the objects photographed, it was not error to exclude from the jury the photograph offered in evidence and marked defendant’s exhibit five. See generally S. A. L. v. Harmon, 99 Fla. 390, 126 So. R. 493. The demurrer to the third count of the declaration should have been sustained because this count does not [*1248] sufficiently allege that the- embankments and growth thereon were on the property of the defendant. Reversed. Terre…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw