Randell v. City of Fort Myers (153 Fla. 665, 1943)

PER CURIAM:

Judgment affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., TERRELL, BROWN, CHAPMAN, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

THOMAS J., dissents.

THOMAS, J.,

dissenting:

I think testimony should have been taken on the bill, and on the answer which the defendant had to present with the petition to vacate the decree pro confesso. In my opinion the answer could not be relied upon for the purpose of vacating the decree pro confesso and then be supplanted by a motion to dismiss. Evans v. Tucker, 101 Fla. 688, 135 So. 305, 85 A.L.R. 170.