
    Muller & Auerback, a Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. J. N. Cowart, Defendant in Error.
    
    Opinion Filed February 14, 1924.
    Where the members of the appellate court are equally divided in opinion as t'o whether a judgment on writ of error should be reversed or affirmed, and there is no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed, so that the litigation may not be unduly prolonged.
    A Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
    ■' Affirmed.
    
      John E. and Julian Hartridge, for Plaintiff in Error;
    
      A. H. and Roswell King, for Defendant in Error.
   Per Curiam.

In this case the Chief Justice', Mr. Justice Ellis and Mr. Justice Browne are of opinion that the judgment rendered by the trial court to which the writ of- error is addressed should be reversed, while Mr. Justice-Whitfield, Mr. Justice West- and Mr. Justice Terrell áre of opinion that said judgment should be affirmed; and, there being no prospect of a change of judicial opinion, the judgment should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 South. Rep. 51; Pensacola Electric Co. v. Humphreys, 61 Fla. 389, 54 South. Rep. 452; Quigg, Chief of Police, v. Radel, 86 Fla. 197, 97 South. Rep. 380; and State ex rel. Amos v. Hamwey, decided at this term.

An order will be entered affirming the judgment herein.

All concur. •  