Harrington v. Bowman, (1932)
Court: Supreme Court of Florida
Number:
Visitors: 12
Judges: PER CURIAM. —
Attorneys: Shackelford, Ivy, Farrior Shannon, for Plaintiff in Error;
Jackson, Dupree Cone, Sparkman Knight, Gibbons Gibbons
and Whitaker, Himes Whitaker, for Defendants in Error.
Filed: Jul. 06, 1932
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: In an opinion heretofore filed * we held that the motion in arrest of judgment, which was granted, should have been denied, and that the judgment for defendants on the merits, which was entered pursuant to the granting of the motion in arrest of judgment, should be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in the Circuit Court on a pending undisposed of motion for a new trial. A rehearing has since been granted and the cause argued before the whole Court. The contention on rehearin
Summary: In an opinion heretofore filed * we held that the motion in arrest of judgment, which was granted, should have been denied, and that the judgment for defendants on the merits, which was entered pursuant to the granting of the motion in arrest of judgment, should be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in the Circuit Court on a pending undisposed of motion for a new trial. A rehearing has since been granted and the cause argued before the whole Court. The contention on rehearing..
More
It seems to me that our original decision and judgment of July 4, 1931, was correct and should be adhered to without modification.
ELLIS, J., concurs.
Source: CourtListener
