The Weekly Tallahasseean., 1901-03-28
SUPREME COURT.

The State of Florida, appellee Brad
ford county.
Per curiam.
/. Section 5, chapter 4,205 laws, ap-
proved June 2, 1893, providing a rem
edy for enforcing compliance with the
requirements of section l Of that act
authorizes the proceedings for, that
purpose to be instituted and conducted
in equity.
2. The Legislature under the police
power may in proper cases require rail-
road companies whose roads cross or
meet each other to construct such
switches, side tracks and connections
as will enable them to transport cars
to and from each others lines. Such
regulations do not amount to TAX
ing of the company's property for
which compensation must be provided.
8. In the absence Of a showing that,
as applied to a particular case, section
1, chapter 4,205 laws, approved June 2,
1893, is an arbitrary or unreasonable
regulation, the court must assume that
it is reasonable, and consequently a
valid regulation, passed in pursuance
Of the police power.
Decree affirmed.
R. H. Liggett, for appellant; w. B.
| Young, for appellee.
E. L. J. Banks, appellant, vs. Emma
Banks, appellee.-Duval county.
Per curiam.
The only foundation for an order
for alimOny, suit money and counsel
fees pendente lite, is the fact of mar
riage between the parties, and where,
at hearing for such order upon bill
filed by the alleged wife there is no
proof of the marriage or living to-
gether as husband and wife except the
allegations of the unsworn bill of COM
plant, while the defendant by affidavit
specifically denies under oath that he
was ever married to the complainant
and that he ever lived with her as his
wife, the court is not justified in max
ing any order for alimony, suit money
and counsel fees pendente lite, or for
the appointment of master to. ascer-
tain and report sums Of money to be
allowed for those purposes, with power
to take testimony in the premises.
Decree reversed.
Walker & L'Engle, for appellant;
Thos. A. Ledwith, for appellee
Fred. N. Warn, plaintiff in error VS.
Asa D.Alderman, defendant in error
Polk county: .... - ::
Carter, J.:
Where a county court is organized il
county as authorized by the Consti
tuition, such court has Jurisdiction Of &
suit in that county to recover upon {
!, written obligation for. the payment o
money, where the edemand invilYed doe
not exceed $500, and the Circuit Coar
, of that county has no Jurisdiction T.
entertain original Jurisdiction of tina
suit so long as the county court exist
= in that county, even though the caus
, of action sued upon accrued prior to tn
Organization of the county court.
!, Judgment reversed. ---7.-
Jefferson Warn, for plaintiff In error
]. L. Albritton, for defendant In error
=. A. T. Stubs, plaintiff in error, vs.. Th
Franklin County Lumber Co., col
poration under the. laws of the Stat
!. Of Florida, defendant in error
Franklin county.
=, Per curiam.
The authority conferred by sectio
- 1,O35, Rev. Stats, upon clerks of tn
Circuit Courts to enter final judgment
upon defaults confines them to th
entry of such final judgments in suit
for money founded upon contract
written or verbal, and such clerks HAY
. no power to enter judgment upon
IL declaration or a count in declaratio
lo in tort.
Judgment reversed.
u Fred. T. Myers, for plaintiff in erro
no appearance for defendant in erro
~ w. B. Bonaker, L. B. Boyd, T. ]. Mino
DC. Lancaster and T. L. Hughes, CO.
stituting the Board of County Cor
- missioners in and for Polk count
- Plaintiff in error, VS.. the State.
- Florida ex rel. Samuel p. McFarlan
relator, defendant in error.-Po
county.
a. Carter, J. -.. .. &
Whenever the Local Option ArtiC
an Of the Constitution has been put
force or active operation in a coun
g.. by virtue Of an election duly call
=, and held, so long as it remains in for
- no license to sell intoxicating liquor