Case Name: John G. Brooks, Appellant, v. Miami Bank & Trust Company, a Banking Corporation Organized Under the Laws of the State of Florida; City National Bank in Miami, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States; The City Trust Company, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States, and Frank L. Herbert, as Receiver of First Mortgage & Bond Company, Appellees
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1930-10-27
Citations: 100 Fla. 1022
Docket Number: 
Parties: John G. Brooks, Appellant, v. Miami Bank & Trust Company, a Banking Corporation Organized Under the Laws of the State of Florida; City National Bank in Miami, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States; The City Trust Company, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States, and Frank L. Herbert, as Receiver of First Mortgage & Bond Company, Appellees.
Judges: Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 100
Pages: 1022–1023

Head Matter:
John G. Brooks, Appellant, v. Miami Bank & Trust Company, a Banking Corporation Organized Under the Laws of the State of Florida; City National Bank in Miami, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States; The City Trust Company, a Corporation Organized Under the National Banking Laws of the United States, and Frank L. Herbert, as Receiver of First Mortgage & Bond Company, Appellees.
Division B.
Decision filed October 27, 1930.
Petition for rehearing denied December 2, 1930.
Stuart Mackenzie, for Appellant;
James M. Carson and Forrest Sullivan, for Appellees.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
— This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decree herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no.error in the said decree; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decree of the circuit court be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Strum and Buford, J. J., concur.