Case ID: fla_148/html/0028-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Thomas, J., dissenting.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miami Transit Company, a Florida Corporation, v. I. J. Hines
    3 So. (2nd) 724
    En Banc
    Opinion Filed July 29, 1941
    Rehearing Denied September 15, 1941
    
      
      Worley & Gautier, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      James G. Pace and Carson, Petteway & Stembler, for Defendant in Error.
   Per Curiam.

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 judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.

Brown, C. J., and Thomas, J., dissent.

Chapman, J., not participating.

Thomas, J., dissenting.

I dissent because of the view that instructions requested by the plaintiff, numbers one and five, modified and given by the court, were erroneous and harmful to the defendant.

Brown, J., concurs.