Case ID: fla_104/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

R. W. Wardell, et al., Appellants, vs. R. F. Demorest, Appellee.
    
    139 So. 589.
    Division A.
    Decision filed February 9, 1932.
    
      
      L. E. Wade and T. J. Jennings, Jr., for Appellants;
    
      A. 8. Crews, for Appellee.
   Pee Curiam.

-—This canse coming on to be heard npon motion of cotmsel for Appellee to dismiss the appeal herein and same having been dnly considered and it appearing that the briefs filed here on behalf of Appellants violate the provisions of Amended Rnle 20, and it appearing to the Court from an examination of the record in the case that the decree appealed from should be affirmed npon cohsideration of the cause npon the merits, it is therefore ordered and decreed by the Court that the said montion to dismiss the appeal herein should be and the same is hereby granted.

Buford, C.J. and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.