Case Name: J. E. SADLER, IRA J. JOHNSTON, and MRS. L. F. BLANKNER, as members of and constituing the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, as a corporate body, and JUDSON B. WALKER, as County Supreintendent of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, v. STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. MRS. J. S. KIRTON, a widow
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1944-06-06
Citations: 154 Fla. 504
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. E. SADLER, IRA J. JOHNSTON, and MRS. L. F. BLANKNER, as members of and constituing the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, as a corporate body, and JUDSON B. WALKER, as County Supreintendent of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, v. STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. MRS. J. S. KIRTON, a widow.
Judges: BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 154
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
J. E. SADLER, IRA J. JOHNSTON, and MRS. L. F. BLANKNER, as members of and constituing the Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, THE BOARD OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, as a corporate body, and JUDSON B. WALKER, as County Supreintendent of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida, v. STATE OF FLORIDA ex rel. MRS. J. S. KIRTON, a widow.
18 So. (2nd) 250
January Term, 1944
June 6, 1944
Division A
Fishback & Smith, for appellant.
Hugh Akerman and Joe Scott Kirton and Akerman, Dial & Akerman, for appellee.

Opinion:
TERRELL, J.: .
The record and the briefs in this case have been examined. Like many cases that make their way to this Court, some point rises above the controversial dust to stimulate judicial exploration. The accuracy with which the trial court sensed the law and squared it with justice, as the syllogism was unfolded, was the consuming point in this case. He steered his way through a maze of legal hurdles as cannily as an old buck in the velvet eludes the pack and so far as we can find, he did not leave a peg on which to hang error outside the wishful cogitations of appellants. His judgment is not reversible when limited to that area, so it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BUFORD, C. J., CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.