Case Name: Richard W. ERVIN, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, for and on behalf of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. MIAMI RETREAT FOUNDATION, a Florida corporation; Miami Retreat, Inc., a Florida corporation; Charles A. Reed; Ruth Reed; and Alfred O'Neill, individually and as Directors and Trustees of Miami Retreat Foundation, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1955-02-01
Citations: 77 So. 2d 787
Docket Number: 
Parties: Richard W. ERVIN, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, for and on behalf of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. MIAMI RETREAT FOUNDATION, a Florida corporation; Miami Retreat, Inc., a Florida corporation; Charles A. Reed; Ruth Reed; and Alfred O’Neill, individually and as Directors and Trustees of Miami Retreat Foundation, Appellees.
Judges: MATHEWS, C. J., and HOBSON, THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 77
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Richard W. ERVIN, as Attorney General of the State of Florida, for and on behalf of the State of Florida, Appellant, v. MIAMI RETREAT FOUNDATION, a Florida corporation; Miami Retreat, Inc., a Florida corporation; Charles A. Reed; Ruth Reed; and Alfred O’Neill, individually and as Directors and Trustees of Miami Retreat Foundation, Appellees.
Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.
Feb. 1, 1955.
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and George E. Owen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Bell & Bell, Brown and Koller, Francis M. Miller, Miami, and J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, and Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The questions attempted to be raised by appellant were foreclosed in the prior appearance of this cause, Miami Retreat Foundation v. Ervin, Fla., 66 So.2d 667. An examination of the original file in the reported case demonstrates that in the opinion filed, the word "appellees" was corrected to the singular by the striking out of the terminal "s". By reason of a typographical error, however, the plural was perpetuated in the copy of the opinion which was released.
It follows that the order appealed from must be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
MATHEWS, C. J., and HOBSON, THOMAS and DREW, JJ., concur.