Case ID: fla_103/html/1156-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Davis, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

W. H. Davis, Plaintiff in Error, vs. A. L. Fleming, Defendant in Error.
    
    138 So. 727.
    Division A.
    Decision filed January 7, 1932.
    
      Milton Pledger, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      Johnston & Rogers, 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.

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis and Terrell, J.J., concur.

Brown, J., dissents.

Davis, J.

(Concurring) :—The evidence in this case is perhaps the weakest that could be imagined on the question of the agency of defendant’s son to bind his father for the work which was done on the father’s place, but I concur on the ground that the presumption in favor of the jury’ verdict', approved by the trial court, has not been overthrown. McKinnon vs. Lewis, 60 Fla. 125, 53 Sou. 940. Phoenix Ins. Co. vs. Bryan, 58 Fla. 341, 50 So. 576.

It may be added that the result also seems to be just.