Case ID: so2d_314/html/0594-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Roy WILLIAMS et al., Appellants, v. Lillie Mae CHESSER et al., Appellees.
    No. X-424.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    May 2, 1975.
    Rehearing Denied June 30, 1975.
    James E. Clayton of Clayton, Duncan, Johnston, Clayton, Quincey, Ireland & Felder, Gainesville, for appellants.
    David L. Reiman of Fagan, Crouch, Anderson & Folds, Gainesville, for appellees.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Janes v. Janes, 153 Fla. 716, 15 So.2d 677 (1943); Section 689.10, Florida Statutes; and Chasteen v. Chasteen, 213 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.1968).

RAWLS, C. J., and JOHNSON and MILLS, JJ., concur.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

Appellants-defendants correctly urge that the Court’s per curiam opinion of 2 May 1975, affirming the trial court, mistakenly cites as authority Janes v. Janes, 153 Fla. 716, 15 So.2d 677 (1943); Section 689.10, Florida Statutes; and Chasteen v. Chasteen, 213 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.1968). However, the Court does not recede from its affirmance.

It is the Court’s opinion that the trial court’s judgment of partition correctly recites the findings of fact and the law applicable thereto.

Petition for rehearing denied.

RAWLS, C. J. and MILLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.