Judges: BUFORD, C. J.:
Attorneys: Shackleford, Farrior Shannon, for appellants.
L.J. Robbins, for appellee.
Filed: Dec. 07, 1943
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: As we read the record it fails to show that claimant was dependent of the deceased within the purview of applicable statutes and the law as enunciated by this Court in the case of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687 , 6 So. 2d 822 , and Stone Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al., 151 Fla. 21 , 9 So. 2d 168 . Cross, et ux, v. Sumter Co. et al., 152 Fla. 864 , 13 So. 2d 219 . For the reason stated, the judgment should be reversed. So ordered. TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING,
Summary: As we read the record it fails to show that claimant was dependent of the deceased within the purview of applicable statutes and the law as enunciated by this Court in the case of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687 , 6 So. 2d 822 , and Stone Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al., 151 Fla. 21 , 9 So. 2d 168 . Cross, et ux, v. Sumter Co. et al., 152 Fla. 864 , 13 So. 2d 219 . For the reason stated, the judgment should be reversed. So ordered. TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, J..
More
As we read the record it fails to show that claimant was dependent of the deceased within the purview of applicable statutes and the law as enunciated by this Court in the case of Panama City Stevedoring Co., Inc., v. Padgett, 149 Fla. 687, 6 So. 2d 822, and Stone Stone, et al., v. Scott, et al.,151 Fla. 21, 9 So. 2d 168. Cross, et ux, v. Sumter Co. et al., 152 Fla. 864, 13 So. 2d 219.
For the reason stated, the judgment should be reversed.
So ordered.
TERRELL, BROWN, THOMAS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.
