This is a companion case to those other two cases of David Sholtz, et al., v. Ben Hur Life Association, in which opinions were filed on December 20, 1935. The judgment in this case is, therefore, affirmed upon authority of the opinions and judgments in those cases. So ordered. Affirmed. ELLIS, P.J., and TERRELL and BUFORD, J.J., concur. WHITFIELD, C.J., and BROWN and DAVIS, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
R.W. Evans brought mandamus against the City of Sarasota to require the respondent to amend its budget for the fiscal year beginning November 1, 1934, so as to provide in said budget a sum sufficient to pay relator the amount due him on certain of the city's bonds of which relator was the holder and to levy a special tax therefor. The Court, after considering a motion for a peremptory writ, ordered that the peremptory writ issue on condition that an amendment be made to the alternative writ to...
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 Plaintiffs in Error, 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 *Page 165 said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the...
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 Plaintiffs in Error, 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 *Page 165 said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the...
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 Plaintiffs in Error, 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 *Page 165 said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the...
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 Plaintiffs in Error, 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 *Page 165 said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the...
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, *Page 268 ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the...
Final judgment in mandamus was recovered by The Woman's Benefit Association of Port Huron, Michigan, a benevolent association, against the Board of Public Instruction of Sarasota County requiring the respondents below to disburse certain moneys on hand to forthwith pay the relator's coupons on production and surrender of the same for payment. The bonds involved were those of Special Tax District No. 1 of Sarasota County and it is alleged and shown that the moneys required to be disbursed were...
Final judgment in mandamus was recovered by The Woman's Benefit Association of Port Huron, Michigan, a benevolent association, against the Board of Public Instruction of Sarasota County requiring the respondents below to disburse certain moneys on hand to forthwith pay the relator's coupons on production and surrender of the same for payment. The bonds involved were those of Special Tax District No. 1 of Sarasota County and it is alleged and shown that the moneys required to be disbursed were...
Final judgment in mandamus was recovered by The Woman's Benefit Association of Port Huron, Michigan, a benevolent association, against the Board of Public Instruction of Sarasota County requiring the respondents below to disburse certain moneys on hand to forthwith pay the relator's coupons on production and surrender of the same for payment. The bonds involved were those of Special Tax District No. 1 of Sarasota County and it is alleged and shown that the moneys required to be disbursed were...
Final judgment in mandamus was recovered by The Woman's Benefit Association of Port Huron, Michigan, a benevolent association, against the Board of Public Instruction of Sarasota County requiring the respondents below to disburse certain moneys on hand to forthwith pay the relator's coupons on production and surrender of the same for payment. The bonds involved were those of Special Tax District No. 1 of Sarasota County and it is alleged and shown that the moneys required to be disbursed were...
The record in this case has been examined and the questions raised found to be substantially the same as those raised in J.J. Zorn, et al., v. T.J. Britton, a companion case decided June 12, 1935, reported in 120 Fla. 304 , 162 So. 2d 879 . No briefs were filed in this case and it is agreed by counsel that the judgment in the last entitled case *Page 747 would control in this. The judgment below is accordingly affirmed on authority of Zorn v. Britton, supra. Affirmed. ELLIS, P.J., and BUFORD, J....
This case is before us on petition for rule nisi in contempt proceedings to require appellee's solicitor to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of this Court because of his failure to comply with the order of this Court entered on December 27th, 1935, as follows: "From an investigation of the record and briefs filed in this case on the wife's behalf, the Court has determined that an attorney's fee for the wife's solicitor should be allowed and that the sum of One Hundred and...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, and Barco Motors, Inc., were together charged in each count of the declaration with negligence which resulted in the injury alleged. The verdict found for the plaintiff against the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $10,000.00, and found the defendant, Barco Motors, Inc., not guilty. A motion for new trial was filed by the defendant, H.E. Wolfe Construction Company, Inc., which motion was denied upon the entry by the plaintiff of a...
Appeal dismissed on motion of counsel for the respective parties.
ON MANDATE FROM U.S. SUPREME COURT This cause was originally decided by this Court under date of June 24, 1935. Kelly v. Knott, 120 Fla. 580 , 163 Sou. Rep. 64. Upon writ of certiorari granted by the Supreme Court of the United States to review that part of the order appealed from which dealt with the claim of the United States, it was on May 25, 1936, adjudged and decreed that the decree of the Supreme Court of Florida, in said cause, insofar as it concerned the claim of the United States in...
The appeal in this case brings for review final decree of foreclosure on a chattel mortgage made and executed on March 24, 1928, by Ruth M. Wisdom, joined by her husband, Louis E. Wisdom, to the Bank of Ybor City to secure payment of a note made and executed by Strickland and Wisdom, Inc., and endorsed by Louis E. Wisdom for the sum of $1400.00 payable ninety (90) days after date. The mortgage contained the following clause: "The parties of the first part do covenant and agree that the said...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 310 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 311 Mary Archer, joined by her husband, A.E. Archer, instituted this action at law against Winn Lovett Grocery Company for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 310 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 311 Mary Archer, joined by her husband, A.E. Archer, instituted this action at law against Winn Lovett Grocery Company for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 310 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 311 Mary Archer, joined by her husband, A.E. Archer, instituted this action at law against Winn Lovett Grocery Company for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the...
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 310 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 311 Mary Archer, joined by her husband, A.E. Archer, instituted this action at law against Winn Lovett Grocery Company for assault and battery and false imprisonment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the...
The City of Bartow, Florida, a municipal corporation, under and by virtue of Chapter 9683, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1923, and Acts amendatory and supplementary thereto, and other special Acts of the Legislature, has heretofore for a number of years owned, operated and maintained an electric light plant and distribution system, the construction of which was originally financed by general obligation bonds duly authorized and issued on behalf *Page 357 of the municipality according to prevailing...
