Legal Opinion

Mayo v. Hynote ex rel. Forcheimer & Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided June 15, 1878PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Eosa county. There is a sufficient statement of the facts in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Yan Yalkenburgh

This was an action of trov'er to recover the value of eer*674tain square hewn timber, which Foreheimer & Co. claimed to be the owners of, alleging that the defendant Mayo had Converted the same to his own use. The defendant plead not guilty, and claimed that the plaintiffs below were not the owners of the property.

The cause was tried at the October term of the court for Santa Rosa county before a jury, and a judgment was entered on the 16th day of that month in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of four hundred dollars. The defendant moved for a new trial, which motion was denied. He then brought…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Board of Police v. Ray ex rel. RayburnMississippi Supreme Court · 1849
  2. Lane v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1869

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Reed v. State of FloridaSupreme Court of Florida · 1927
  2. Glasser, Kuder & Ottensoser v. HackettSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
  3. Hicks v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1889
  4. Johnston v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1892
  5. Livingston v. CooperSupreme Court of Florida · 1886

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API