From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mauk v. State

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Feb 17, 1933
145 So. 887 (Fla. 1933)

Opinion

Opinion filed February 17, 1933.

A writ of error to the Circuit Court for Hernando County, F. L. Stringer, Judge.

F. W. Butler, for Plaintiff in Error;

Cary D. Landis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell, Assistant for State.


The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court of Hernando County under an indictment in two counts. At the trial the State elected to stand on the first count of the indictment. That count of the indictment appears to have been drawn under the provisions of section 5143 R. G. S., 7244 C. G. L.

The evidence fails to establish the essential element of an offense under this statute, to-wit: that the defendant was a bailee for hire. Therefore, the judgment must be reversed on authority of Tounsend v. State, 63 Fla. 46, 57 So. 611. It is so ordered.

Reversed.

DAVIS, C. J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL and BUFORD, J. J., concur.

BROWN, J., concurs in the result.


Summaries of

Mauk v. State

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B
Feb 17, 1933
145 So. 887 (Fla. 1933)
Case details for

Mauk v. State

Case Details

Full title:W. F. MAUK, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant in Error

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Division B

Date published: Feb 17, 1933

Citations

145 So. 887 (Fla. 1933)
145 So. 887

Citing Cases

Doherty v. Mississippi Power Co.

By the analogy of these two cases we sincerely submit that the peremptory instruction of the court below…

The Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Hinton

"Court will enforce insurance contracts according to their terms, if not prohibited by law or public policy."…