Booker v. East Coast Motors, Inc., 149 So. 580 (Fla. 1933). · Go Syfert
Search
Booker v. East Coast Motors, Inc., 149 So. 580 (Fla. 1933). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Finch v. Mayo (fla, 1939-05-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Finch v. Mayo
Fla. · 1939 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ex parte Ferris, 111 Fla. 584 , 149 Sou. 580 ; Anderson v. Chapman, 109 Fla. 54 , 146 Sou. 675 ; State ex rel v. Mayo, 129 Fla. 428 , 176 Sou. 434 ; Lewis v. Mayo, 127 Fla. 488 , 173 Sou. 346 . *764 Petitioner also shows that he began his service of sentence in the State Prison in April, 1928; that after serving thirteen days he was committed to the Florida State Hospital for the Insane and was confined there until August 2nd, 1934, when he was returned to the State Prison Farm where he has continued to serve his sentence.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert Booker
v.
East Coast Motors, Inc.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 5, 1933.
149 So. 580
Nottingham Dennison, for Plaintiff in Error; Dame Rogers, for Defendant in Error.
Davis, Whitfield, Buford.
Published

Lead Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment 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 judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield and Buford, J. J., concur.

Concurrence

[*707] Davis, C. J.

(concurring). — I concur in the conclusion that the judgment in this case based on sustaining demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration should be affirmed. While there may be ground for holding an automobile owner liable if he delivers a car to a man actually in a drunken condition at the time, by reason whereof' the drunken man is killed or injured in attempting to drive it away while still.in such drunken condition (Block v. R. R. Co., 192 Mass. 448), I do not think this rule can he extended to cover a case where an automobile is delivered to a man at the time of delivery sober, but who has the reputation for getting drunk, and who later does get drunk and kills himself while attempting to operate the car while he is in a drunken condition.