Case Name: Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. The HOUSTON CORPORATION, a nonresident corporation, Respondent; Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. 76TH STREET CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1965-09-08
Citations: 182 So. 2d 421
Docket Number: Nos. 33937, 33937-A
Parties: Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. The HOUSTON CORPORATION, a nonresident corporation, Respondent. Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. 76TH STREET CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Respondent.
Judges: THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., and KING, Circuit Judge, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 182
Pages: 421–421

Head Matter:
Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. The HOUSTON CORPORATION, a nonresident corporation, Respondent. Monserrate Albin RODRIGUEZ, as surviving spouse of Dolores Rodriguez, deceased, etc., Petitioner, v. 76TH STREET CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, Respondent.
Nos. 33937, 33937-A.
Supreme Court of Florida
Sept. 8, 1965.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1966.
Paul A. Louis, Bertha Claire Lee and Sinclair, Barfield & Louis, Miami, for petitioner.
S. O. Carson, John H. Wahl, Jr., and Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl, Miami, for The Houston Corporation.
Dixon, Dejarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell and James A. Dixon, Jr., Miami, for 76th Street Corporation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The petition for certiorari initially suggested a jurisdictional conflict of decisions. Rodriguez et al. v. Houston Corp. et al., Fla.App., 167 So.2d 746. We granted the writ but set the matter for hearing on both jurisdiction and merits.
We have heard oral arguments and have carefully examined the decision under review, together with the briefs and supporting record. We have now concluded that a jurisdictional conflict is not present, so the writ must be discharged as having been improvidently issued.
It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., THOMAS, ROBERTS and DREW, JJ., and KING, Circuit Judge, concur.