This appeal is from a final decree validating Municipal Recreation Revenue Bonds proposed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as provided by Chapter 24514, Special Acts of 1947. The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and resist, issuance of the bonds. No objection is offered to the resolution or other proceedings incident to their issue. It is first contended that the purchase of property and the construction of recreational facilities thereon as contemplated *Page 499 by...
This appeal is from a final decree validating Municipal Recreation Revenue Bonds proposed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as provided by Chapter 24514, Special Acts of 1947. The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and resist, issuance of the bonds. No objection is offered to the resolution or other proceedings incident to their issue. It is first contended that the purchase of property and the construction of recreational facilities thereon as contemplated *Page 499 by...
This appeal is from a final decree validating Municipal Recreation Revenue Bonds proposed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as provided by Chapter 24514, Special Acts of 1947. The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and resist, issuance of the bonds. No objection is offered to the resolution or other proceedings incident to their issue. It is first contended that the purchase of property and the construction of recreational facilities thereon as contemplated *Page 499 by...
This appeal is from a final decree validating Municipal Recreation Revenue Bonds proposed by the City of Fort Lauderdale as provided by Chapter 24514, Special Acts of 1947. The appellant, a citizen and taxpayer, was permitted to intervene and resist, issuance of the bonds. No objection is offered to the resolution or other proceedings incident to their issue. It is first contended that the purchase of property and the construction of recreational facilities thereon as contemplated *Page 499 by...
This is an application under Rule 35(e)(f) of the rules of this Court to review a decree of the Circuit Court of Duval County, overruling an application of petitioner for supersedeas pending the consideration and disposition of a petition for certiorari to review an order or decree of the Circuit Court in the said cause. The record discloses that the order of the Circuit Court which petitioner seeks to supersede was entered October 11th, 1947, and that the Circuit Court denied the application...
This cause is before us on motion to vacate supersedeas order or to modify the terms and provisions of the order entered in the court below. The order in the court below fixing the terms and conditions of the supersedeas bond was as follows: "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that upon the filing by the above named Plaintiff herein of a Supersedeas bond in the sum of $2,000.00, with good and sufficient sureties to be approved by the Clerk of this Court, and conditioned that the plaintiff will make payment...
Appellant-plaintiff brought a replevin action and upon trial the verdict was "for the defendant" and the trial court entered a final judgment that defendant recover the automobile in the hands of the sheriff. Motion for new trial was denied and plaintiff appeals and assigns as grounds for appeal six alleged errors of the trial judge. The first assignment of error complains that the trial judge erred in not directing a verdict for the plaintiff. The second and third assignments of error complain...
Under Section 768.01, Fla. Stat., 1941, F.S.A., appellee sued appellant on two counts. The substance of the first count was that appellant, by discharging a pistol, killed appellee's husband by his careless and negligent act. The second count charged the same injury was inflicted by a wrongful act. The case came on for trial upon pleas of not guilty, contributory negligence and self defense. Evidence disclosed that appellee's husband was the manager of an airport where appellant had a plane in...
On this appeal counsel for appellant contend that the evidence and exhibits adduced by the plaintiff below were legally sufficient to justify the entry of a final decree establishing a resulting trust. Our study of all the testimony has been made in the light of this contention and we have reached the conclusion, that the order dismissing the bill of complaint was free from error and within the rule previously enunciated by this Court. The rule is that the testimony relied upon to establish a...
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
Appellants were convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony, to-wit — grand larceny and were sentenced to imprisonment for five years and to pay the costs which were taxed at $71.43, or in default of the payment to serve an additional thirty days. One question presented on this appeal is whether the sentence is legal. It is submitted that the judgment must be reversed under authority of Howell v. State, 136 Fla. 582 , 187 So. 163 . By authority of Sec. 775.06 Fla. Stat....
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
This is the second appearance of this cause here on petition for certiorari. See Howard Cole Company, Inc., et al. v. Williams, et al., 157 Fla. 851 , 27 So. 2d 352 . The chronology of the matters pertinent to the present disposition is set out in an opinion by Mr. Justice BARNS, concurred in by Mr. Chief Justice THOMAS, which will be filed herewith. The majority of the court cannot agree with the deductions stated and the conclusions reached in the Barns opinion. We think that the bill of...
ON REHEARING GRANTED On November 5, 1946, we reversed the decree appealed from and thereafter granted a rehearing. Upon further consideration of the case we are convinced that we were in error in the first instance. Stovall's letter of conditional acceptance dated January 10, 1945, limited the one-third item to that "salvaged so far as the corporation is concerned." Admittedly the corporation, Stovall Properties, Inc., saved nothing out of the litigation. Williams then rests his claim for...
First a philandering escapade in Virginia, second a meretricious episode in Palm Beach and then a law suit in Miami. Such was the evolution of this litigation. Both parties had previously dabbled in the fire of Eros and had taken a fling at matrimony but wearied of the venture and gave it up. When they sojourned in Palm Beach and settled in Miami they represented themselves to be man and wife. Milligan, one of the principals, entered into contract at Miami for the purchase of two vacant lots...
Appellant, having been indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Duval County of the crime of murder in the first degree, and having been adjudged guilty and sentenced to death by electrocution, perfected his appeal to this Court. He has presented here 32 questions for our consideration, contending that the court below committed reversible error by acts of omission or commission which several acts constitute the basis for the questions presented. We have carefully considered the...
The appeal brings for review judgment of the Circuit Court of Dade County entered pursuant to motion granted for a directed verdict. On the trial jury was waived. At the close of plaintiff's testimony, defendants moved for a directed verdict which motion was granted and thereupon the Court entered its judgment in favor of the defendants. This is the second appearance of this litigation in this Court: See Wicker v. Board of Public Instruction etc., 156 Fla. 7 , 22 So. (2 ) 255. On that appeal we...
