Case Name: Robert Mugge, Plaintiff in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, a Corporation under the Laws of the State of Louisiana, Defendant in Error; Robert Mugge, Emilio Pons and S. J. Drawdy, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1906-01
Citations: 51 Fla. 255
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert Mugge, Plaintiff in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, a Corporation under the Laws of the State of Louisiana, Defendant in Error. Robert Mugge, Emilio Pons and S. J. Drawdy, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 255–256

Head Matter:
Robert Mugge, Plaintiff in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, a Corporation under the Laws of the State of Louisiana, Defendant in Error. Robert Mugge, Emilio Pons and S. J. Drawdy, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Tate, Jones & Company of Louisiana, Limited, Defendant in Error.
The concurrence of a majority of the members of the Supreme Court sitting as a body is necessary to a decision; but where the members of the court sitting are equally divided, the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51.
This case was decided by the Court En Banc.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County.
The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
J. J. Lunsford, for Plaintiffs in Error.
. . C. G. Whitaker, for Defendants in Error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In these causes the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice COCKRELL and Mr. Justice WHITFIELD are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, while Mr. Justice TAYLOR, Mr. Justice HOOKER and Mr. Justice PARKHILL are of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Under these circumstances, upon the authority of the State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla, 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Commercial Bank v. Towers, 48 Fla. 250, 37 South. Rep. 742, and Holton v. Patterson, 49 Fla. 178, 38 South. Rep. 352, a judgment will be entered in each of the above styled cause affirming the judgments to which the writs of error were taken. It is so ordered.