E. B. CARPENTER AND LOUISE ZINKHAM CARPENTER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATED REALTY CORPORATION, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
N. B. T. RONEY, T. J. BLACKWELL AND LILLIAN MOSELEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF THE ROYAL REALTY COMPANY
E. B. CARPENTER AND LOUISE ZINKHAM CARPENTER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE ASSOCIATED REALTY CORPORATION, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION,
N. B. T. RONEY, T. J. BLACKWELL AND LILLIAN MOSELEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF THE ROYAL REALTY COMPANY
151 Fla. 619
Florida Supreme Court (1942)
Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 10 So. 2d 138
Cited by 3 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.
Affirmed.
BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, BUFORD, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. State, 377 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1979)…ecognized that a defendant might be charged under this statute in separate counts for maintaining or keeping a gambling room or house and for procuring or permitting another to gamble at a place under his control. Vanderhorst v. State, 151 Fla. 620, 10 So. 2d 138 (1942); Toll v. State, supra. The cases cited above and other reported cases dealing with what is now section 849.-01, Florida Statutes (1975), have usually involved the charge of maintaining or keeping a gambling house. In an early case dealing wi…
-
Perlman v. State, 269 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)…y specifies two offenses. One is the maintaining of a house for purposes of gambling. The other is permitting gambling in a place under one’s control. The disjunctive nature of this statute was recognized in Vanderhorst v. State, 1942, 151 Fla. 620, 10 So. 2d 138, 140, and Toll v. State, 1898, 40 Fla. 169, 23 So, 942. The informations in the present case are sufficient only to charge each defendant with maintaining a place for purposes of gambling. They are not sufficient to charge a violation of the second…
-
State v. Ferguson, 365 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…59 So. 2d 59 (Fla.1952); Mart v. State, 350 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Gaetano v. State, 273 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), such proof does not seem to be required for a conviction under the second part. See Vander-horst v. State, 151 Fla. 620, 10 So. 2d 138 (1942) where dicta of the majority opinion seems to us to strongly direct such a conclusion. In addition, we are a bit hard pressed to see any reason for the two separate parts of the statute if habitualness is a necessary element of each part. We…