Cuno Corp. v. Lamb, Et Ux., 190 So. 246 (Fla. 1939). · Go Syfert
Cuno Corp. v. Lamb, Et Ux., 190 So. 246 (Fla. 1939). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gutterman v. State (fladistctapp, 1962-05-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Gutterman v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kiser v. Mayo, 138 Fla. 775 , 190 So. 246 (1939).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Febre
Fla. · 1945 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sections 775.08 and 784.04, Fla. Stats. 1941 (FSA) Kiser v. Mayo, 138 Fla. 775 , 190 So. 246 , Section 11 of Article V of the *152 Constitution provides that Circuit Courts shall have appellate jurisdiction ... of all misdemeanors tried in the Criminal Courts of Record.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Perkins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Kiser v. Mayo, 138 Fla. 775 , 190 So. 246 (1939) (where judgment and sentence were not authorized by law, trial court’s jurisdiction continues until lawful judgment entered); Greenhalgh v. State, 582 So.2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (sentence that exceeds statutory maximum is illegal and may be appealed at any time); Wahl v. State, 543 So.2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA) (departure sentence imposed for crimes committed prior to effective date of guidelines was illegal and subject to attack by motion to correct illegal sentence), review denied, 551 So.2d 463 (Fla.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cuno Corporation, a Florida Corporation,
v.
Charles R. Lamb, Et Ux.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jun 27, 1939.
190 So. 246
A.N. Spence, for Appellant; Thompson Thompson, John G. Thompson and J. Tillman Pearson, for Appellees.
Terrell, Buford, Thomas, Brown, Whitfield, Chapman, Compiled, Laws, Rules.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Per Curiam. —

Appeal brings for review a decree in favor of a plaintiff seeking to foreclose an alleged vendor’s lien by entering a money decree but decreeing that plaintiffs had no lien on the property involved and declining to impress a vendor's lien on the property.

The issues were clear cut and definite.

The evidence was conflicting and the chancellor could have resolved the conflicts in favor of either party. He resolved them in favor of the defendants and as it cannot be shown clearly that his conclusions were erroneous, his findings will not be disturbed by the appellate Court. See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 Sou. 497 and cases there cited.

So the decree is affirmed.

So ordered.

Affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur. Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment. Justices Whitfield and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.