Case Name: Warren H. Toole, Warren H. Toole, Jr., and Gordon Toole, Individually and as a Copartnership doing business as W. H. Toole & Sons; Charles J. Eichelberger and Cordie Eichelberger, Individually and as a Co-partnership Doing Business as Eichelberger & Company, E. F. Moorehouse, O. L. Schulstad, L. T. Sammons, E. W. Hensley, S. H. Morre, Oscar Ayla, Charles E. Ball, D. A. Caley, A. J. Simms, W. H. Wells, M. F. Zerface, Otto K. Johnson, Marie E. Bixby, and M. W. Law, v. City of Tampa
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1940-05-21
Citations: 143 Fla. 124
Docket Number: 
Parties: Warren H. Toole, Warren H. Toole, Jr., and Gordon Toole, Individually and as a Copartnership doing business as W. H. Toole & Sons; Charles J. Eichelberger and Cordie Eichelberger, Individually and as a Co-partnership Doing Business as Eichelberger & Company, E. F. Moorehouse, O. L. Schulstad, L. T. Sammons, E. W. Hensley, S. H. Morre, Oscar Ayla, Charles E. Ball, D. A. Caley, A. J. Simms, W. H. Wells, M. F. Zerface, Otto K. Johnson, Marie E. Bixby, and M. W. Law, v. City of Tampa.
Judges: Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Tiiomas, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 143
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
Warren H. Toole, Warren H. Toole, Jr., and Gordon Toole, Individually and as a Copartnership doing business as W. H. Toole & Sons; Charles J. Eichelberger and Cordie Eichelberger, Individually and as a Co-partnership Doing Business as Eichelberger & Company, E. F. Moorehouse, O. L. Schulstad, L. T. Sammons, E. W. Hensley, S. H. Morre, Oscar Ayla, Charles E. Ball, D. A. Caley, A. J. Simms, W. H. Wells, M. F. Zerface, Otto K. Johnson, Marie E. Bixby, and M. W. Law, v. City of Tampa.
196 So. 430
En Banc
Opinion Filed May 21, 1940
Henry H. Cole, for Appellants;
Alonso B. McMullen and Ralph A. Marsicano, for Appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Wi-iitfield and Mr. Justice Ci-iapman are of the opinion that the decree in this cause should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Brown, Mr. Justice Buford and Mr. Justice Tpiomas are of the opinion that the said decree should be reversed. When the members of the Supreme Court, sitting six members in a body and after full consultation, it appears that the members of the Court are permanently and equally divided in opinion as to whether the decree should be affirmed or reversed, and there is no prospect of an immediate change in the personnej of the Court, the decree should be affirmed; therefore, it is considered, ordered and adjudged under the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. R. 51, that the decree of the circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., Whitfield, Brown, Buford, Chapman and Tiiomas, J. J., concur.