Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: R. Don McLeod, Jr., for Appellant;
J. M. Calhoun, for Appellee.
Filed: Jul. 23, 1926
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, *Page 338 ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same
Summary: 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 decree; it is, therefore, considered, *Page 338 ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the Circuit Court be, and the same i..
More
On Petition for Rehearing.
The record in this cause has been carefully re-examined and the questions of law raised in briefs reconsidered. We do not approve the bill of complaint as a model pleading nor do we think the procedure in all respects regular, but on the issues presented by the bill and answer the finding of the Chancellor appears fair and just and is supported by legal evidence. It is therefore affirmed. See Slorah v. Wilcox,
59 Fla. 601,
52 So., 12; Baggott et al. v. Otis et al
65 Fla. 447,
62 So. 362; Craft v. American Agricultural Chemical Co.,
81 Fla., 55,
87 So. 41.
Decree affirmed on rehearing.
WHITFIELD, P. J., AND TERRELL AND BUFORD, J. J., concur.
