From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ratliff et al. v. Schenck

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Aug 6, 1932
134 So. 437 (Fla. 1932)

Opinion

Opinion filed August 6, 1932. Petition for rehearing denied September 17, 1932.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardee County; W. J. Barker, Judge.

W. W. Whitehurst and Treadwell Treadwell, for Appellants;

R. B. Huffaker, for Appellee.


In this cause Mr. Chief Justice Buford, Mr. Justice Brown and Mr. Justice Davis are of opinion that the decree of the Court below should be affirmed while Mr. Justice Whitfield, Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Terrell are of 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 personnel 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.2d R. 51, that the decree of the Circuit Court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

BUFORD, C.J., AND WHITFIELD, ELLIS, TERRELL, BROWN, AND DAVIS, J.J., concur.


Summaries of

Ratliff et al. v. Schenck

Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc
Aug 6, 1932
134 So. 437 (Fla. 1932)
Case details for

Ratliff et al. v. Schenck

Case Details

Full title:D. O. RATLIFF, joined by his wife, ALICE S. RATLIFF, and RATLIFF HOLDING…

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, En Banc

Date published: Aug 6, 1932

Citations

134 So. 437 (Fla. 1932)
134 So. 437

Citing Cases

Gardiner v. Montegut

In an application for rehearing counsel for plaintiff-appellant suggests that, inasmuch as the plea of…