Case Name: J. H. Pope, M. M. Andrews, Andrew & Mahon, Lacey Mahon, W. T. McCaffery and Johnson & McIlvaine v. The State of Florida, The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; L. G. Hitchcolk, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Duval County, a political Subdivision of the State; and R. Fleming Bowden, as Tax Collector of Duval County
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1938-01-07
Citations: 130 Fla. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. H. Pope, M. M. Andrews, Andrew & Mahon, Lacey Mahon, W. T. McCaffery and Johnson & McIlvaine v. The State of Florida, The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; L. G. Hitchcolk, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Duval County, a political Subdivision of the State; and R. Fleming Bowden, as Tax Collector of Duval County.
Judges: Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 130
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
J. H. Pope, M. M. Andrews, Andrew & Mahon, Lacey Mahon, W. T. McCaffery and Johnson & McIlvaine v. The State of Florida, The Florida National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Barnett National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; The Atlantic National Bank of Jacksonville, a corporation; L. G. Hitchcolk, as Clerk of the Circuit Court of Duval County, Duval County, a political Subdivision of the State; and R. Fleming Bowden, as Tax Collector of Duval County.
178 So. 111.
Division B.
Opinion Filed January 7, 1938.
DeHoff & DeHoff and Mickler & Mickler, for Appellants ;
Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and H. E. Carter, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Praecipe for dismissal of this appeal was filed by the appellants two days before the date set for oral argument. The case was argued by the Attorney General only. A careful consideration of the questions involved convinces us that no useful purpose could be served by denying the motion to dismiss the appeal and attempting to answer the questions raised by the State. Indeed it appears that this is now practically a moot case.
Appeal dismissed on appellants' motion, the costs to be assessed against the appellants.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Chapman, J. J., concur.
Ellis, C. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment. •