Volume 48 — Florida Reports

<p>This case was decided by Divison A.</p> <p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Walton county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Jefferson county. Statement. At the spring term, 1904, of the Circuit Court of Jefferson county the plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the larceny of a bull of the value of seven dollars of the property of Turner Sauls, and was sentenced to the State Prison for two years, which sentence and judgment the plaintiff in error seeks to reverse in this court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Baker county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record for Volusia county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Monroe county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Criminal Court of Record for Monroe county. The facts in the case are stated in the- opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Washington county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Jackson county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Walton county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for DeSoto county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Washington county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>This case was decided by Division A.</p> <p>Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Holmes county.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Marion county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Columbia county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Under the constitution and laws of Florida a county judge has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and inaugurate the proceedings in a bastardy case, and refer the same to the Circuit Court for trial.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Marion county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Columbia county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Citrus county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval county. Statement. On July 25, 1901, plaintiff in error began an action against the defendant in error in the Circuit Court of Duval county to recover upon a fire insurance policy. There was a verdict and judgment for defendant, from which this writ of error was taken by the plaintiff. The original declaration contains three counts.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Leon county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Marion county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. This is a case of original jurisdiction. Statement. The above mentioned three cases against three separate corporations are founded upon alternative writs and demurrers thereto, in the same language and terms, and the opinion in the first case will be considered as applying to each of them. Upon the petition of the relators an alternative writ of mandamus issued out of this court on March 7, 1904, alleging in substance: 1.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. Statement. On February 2nd, 1904, an alternative writ of mandamus issued from this court alleging: “1.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Duval county- Statement.

This case was decided by Division B. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Alachua county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. Statement. This case was instituted in this court, being one over which it has original jurisdiction. The alternative writ is as follows: “State of Florida: To Darwin B. Givens. Whereas it has been suggested by the petition of William H. Ellis, Attorney-General, that: Your petitioner, William IT.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. This is a case of original jurisdiction. Statement. On the petition of the relator, Moses Guyton, clerk of the Circuit Court of Jackson county, Florida, presented to this court, an alternative writ was issued in the following form: In the Supreme Court op the State op Florida.

<p>This case was decided by the court En Banc.</p> <p>This is a case of original jurisdiction.</p> <p>The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Marion county. Statement. On the 27th day of September, 1904, L. Paul Jumeau as administrator of the estate of Achille Laurent, deceased, one of the plaintiffs in error, filed a petition in this court for a rule nisi against Augustus T. Priest as Sheriff of Citrus county.

This case was decided by Division A. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Columbia county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval county. Statement. The appellants as complainants below filed their bill in equity in the Circuit Court of Duval county against the appellees.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from Circuit Court for Marion county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division A. Appeal from Circuit Court for Madison county. Statement.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus county. Statement. On April 12th, 1902, appellee, Herbert L. Anderson as trustee, filed his bill against appellant and one Charles Jones, seeking partition of certain real estate situated in Citrus county.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court for Alachua county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Decree affirmed upon the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51.</p>

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county. Statement. On September 16th, 1891, appellee Louise G. King, who was then the wife of J. W. P. King, became the owner in fee simple of the land involved in this controversy by purchase from one Calvin Gillis.

<p>This case was decided by Division B.</p> <p>Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange county.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard county. Statement.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by Division B. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion county. Statement. The transcript of the record in this case is rather voluminous, and, in view of the conclusion which we have reached, we see no useful purpose to be accomplished in setting forth the pleadings and proceedings in detail, so shall refer to only such portions thereof as may seem necessary for a proper understanding of the opinion.

<p>1. When a general replication is filed to an answer in chancery it thereby puts in issue all the matters alleged in the bill and not admitted in the answer, as well as those matters contained in the answer which are not responsive to the bill.</p> <p>S. When an answer in chancery concludes with the ushal general denial found in such a pleading, it is sufficient to make an issue on material allegations in the bill not admitted in the answer, and to which no especial response is made. Such allegations can not be taken as admitted- to be true, but must be proved by at least a preponderance of the testimony.</p> <p>3. While it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove all the material allegations in the bill which are not admitted in the answer, when the oath to the answer is waived all that the complainant is required to do is to maintain the issue so made by a preponderance of the evidence, such an answer not being evidence in favor of the defendant.</p> <p>4. It is the duty of a court of equity to see that the’ interests of infants are protected in suits before it, whether the claim or defense be properly pleaded or not, and for this purpose the Chancellor should look to the record in all its parts, and of his own motion give to the infants the benefit of all objections and exceptions appearing thereon, as if specifically interposed.</p> <p>5. It is a general rule that an infant should not be prejudiced by any act, default or admission on the part of his guardian ad Utem, an infant being a ward of the court and, therefore, the court is bound to protect the rights of the infant, notwithstanding the failure of the guardian ad Utem to do so.</p> <p>6. It is the duty of an appellate court to protect the rights of infants, and to give them the benefit of every ground of defense of which they might have availed themselves in the court below, either in the way of pleading or objections to incompetent or illegal evidence, even though the infants have not appealed from the decree of the chancellor or assigned or argued any errors in the appellate court.</p> <p>7. Where a material allegation in the bill of complaint is the execution of certain deeds, and the execution of suc'h deeds is denied in the answer, it is incumbent upon the complainant to sustain the allegation as to the execution of the deeds by a preponderance of the evidence, the oath to the answer being waived.</p> <p>8. The signing, sealing and delivery of a deed in the presence of at least two subscribing witnesses by the party conveying an estate are all essential and no one of these statutory requirements can be dispensed with.</p> <p>9. The delivery of a deed by the grantor, and its acceptance by the grantee, are essential to convey title.</p> <p>10. An appeal in chancery opens the whole case for the consideration of the appellate court, and a cross-appeal is not essential to entitle an appellee to a reversal of a decree which contains errors prejudicial to .his rights.</p>

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Writ of error to the Circuit Court for Madison county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court Bn Banc. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua county.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

This case was decided by the court En Banc. Appeal from Circuit Court for Alachua county. The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Writ Of error to Circuit Court, Putnam county; James T. Wills, Judge.</p>