third assignment error in Florida

1938“In the case of People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223 , 3 Pac.

1938“In the case of People v. Swafford, 65 Cal. 223 , 3 Pac.

1959In Kurtz v. State, 26 Fla. 351 , 7 So. 869 , 870, the Supreme Court said: "The third assignment of error is `that the information herein is not sworn to as required by law.' "Article 5, § 28, Const. 1885, provides: `All offenses triable in said (criminal) court shall be prosecuted upon information under oath.' Chapter 3731, § 13, Laws 1887 [F.S.A. § 32.18], prescribed the following oath to be made by the county solicitor to informations filed by him, to-wit: `Personally appeared before me ____, county solicitor, who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoi

1958On the first of those questions, while the court was privileged to entertain the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, before answer, as held and pointed out in our earlier opinion ( 102 So.2d 159 , at page 163), the record discloses there were genuine and material issues of fact as to whether there had been a breach of the contract for which it could be cancelled.

1938The nature of the testimony, other than its importance and ‘materiality, was not made a basis of the motion to exclude the morbid spectators from the court room.' This Court had before it a motion to exclude spectators from the court room in the case of Robertson v. State, 64 Fla. 437 , 60 So. 118 , when it was said: “The third assignment of error challenges the action of the court below in ordering the doors of the court house to be closed and the general public to be excluded during the *27 trial, excepting the court officers, the jury, witnesses, attorneys representing the parties, and all

1937Counsel for defendant relies upon the citation of authorities, viz.: Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala. App. 408 , 78 Sou.

1937Counsel for defendant relies upon the citation of authorities, viz.: Hardaman v. State, 16 Ala. App. 408 , 78 Sou.

1932State, 44 Fla. 81 , 32 Sou. 836 , this Court said: “The third assignment of error is based upon the ruling of the court below in admitting the testimony of one Saussy, a witness for the State, to the effect that Miss Ives said to him that Kirby (defendant) had shot Ed. (the deceased) which led him to go to the scene of the shooting.

1903Quock Ting v. United States, 140 U. S. 417 , 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 733, 851. it is strenuously contended by the plaintiff in error that the deed of assignment offered in evidence by him is void as containing purposes and trusts whieh are- in violation of our law providing for assignments for the benefit of creditors.

1902That wrongful forcible possession will not .support a. bill to -remove a cloud, see Gould v. Sternberg, 105 Ill. 488 ; Gage v. Hampton, 127 Ill. 87 , 20 N. E.

1902That wrongful forcible possession will not .support a. bill to -remove a cloud, see Gould v. Sternberg, 105 Ill. 488 ; Gage v. Hampton, 127 Ill. 87 , 20 N. E.

1901In Bemis v. McKenzie 13 Fla. 553 , this court had occasion to pass upon the scope of this plea, under the rules then in force, and it was held, under those rules that such a plea was good as to the common counts and say “the rule prohibiting the plea of non assumpsit is confined to' cases where the action is only on the note, and on the promise to pay contained m or implied by law from it.

1888(Pacific Express Co. v. Darnell, 62 Texas, 639 .) The inference from the averments is that the contract to deliver a part of the cattle to Shiner & Williams was made after the execution of the contract with plaintiff; so that, in our opinion, the latter would not be liable for any damage incurred by defendant by reason of his failure to make a timely delivery to them, although such failure was caused by plaintiff’s dereliction in failing to make delivery according to the terms of his agreement with defendant.