Eckman & Vetsburg v. Munnerlyn
Supreme Court of Florida
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough county. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Mabry, J.:
Samuel H. Eckman and Abraham Yetsburg, as co-partners, doing business in the firm name of Eckman & Yetsburg, commenced in the Circuit Court for Hills-borough county, Florida, on the 10th day of December, A. D. 1888, a suit of attachment returnable rule day in January, 1889, against J. K. Munnerlyn. The affidavit upon which the attachment is based was made by an agent of the plaintiffs, and after reciting that fact, states “that James K. Munnerlyn, of the county of Hillsborough, is justly indebted to the said Eckman & Yetsburg in the sum of nine hundred and forty-five and 60-100…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Southard v. . BennerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Etheridge v. SperrySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Smith & Hoe v. AckerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1840
- Horton v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Freeman v. RawsonOhio Supreme Court · 1855
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- C. B. Rogers & Co. v. MunnerlynSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
- J. G. White Engineering Corp. v. Peoples State Bank of LakelandSupreme Court of Florida · 1921
- First National Bank v. WittichSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- Kent v. Polk Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1938
- Armstrong, Cator & Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of Florida · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.