Case Name: H. D. LeCato, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of LeCato Construction Company, Appellant, v. Woods-Hoskins-Young Company, a Florida Corporation, Kirkpatrick Lumber & Timber Corporation, an Alabama Corporation, R. E. Wynn, Trading as Gem Plumbing Company, Placidena Corporation, a Corporation Existing Under the Laws of New York, G. Frank Croissant, His Wife, Harriett Croissant, and Fred G. Morphett, Individually and as Trustee et al., Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1928-11-17
Citations: 96 Fla. 563
Docket Number: 
Parties: H. D. LeCato, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of LeCato Construction Company, Appellant, v. Woods-Hoskins-Young Company, a Florida Corporation, Kirkpatrick Lumber & Timber Corporation, an Alabama Corporation, R. E. Wynn, Trading as Gem Plumbing Company, Placidena Corporation, a Corporation Existing Under the Laws of New York, G. Frank Croissant, His Wife, Harriett Croissant, and Fred G. Morphett, Individually and as Trustee et al., Appellees.
Judges: Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 563–563

Head Matter:
H. D. LeCato, Doing Business Under the Firm Name of LeCato Construction Company, Appellant, v. Woods-Hoskins-Young Company, a Florida Corporation, Kirkpatrick Lumber & Timber Corporation, an Alabama Corporation, R. E. Wynn, Trading as Gem Plumbing Company, Placidena Corporation, a Corporation Existing Under the Laws of New York, G. Frank Croissant, His Wife, Harriett Croissant, and Fred G. Morphett, Individually and as Trustee et al., Appellees.
Division B.
Decision filed November 17, 1928.
Fred J. Cohn, for Appellant;
MoCune, Casey, Hiaasen & Fleming, for Appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree 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 decree; it is therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.