*1 18é having Curiam. The in

Per record this cause been con- by Court, foregoing opinion sidered the prepared and the Chapter 14553, adopted under 1929, by Acts of Court the by opinion, considered, as its it ordered, and decreed is the Court the of the and be, that decree court below should hereby, reversed; the same and this remanded is cause is complain- decree, for with directions to enter the usual the complainant princi- to for ant for amount found be due the pal upon purchase-money and interest the contracts and the further sum of for of $601.30 care and maintenance the groves and with a deduction the amount due from found complainant of $132.81 for allowed defendant fruit removed groves. from the

Buford, C.J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown J.J., and Davis, concur.

Holly Hill Appellant, Co., Grove & Fruit vs. W. Lee ux, Appellees. et

Wicker, Rehearing. On Opinion July 7, filed 1931. Milam, Appellant;

Milam, Mcllvaine & for Ed/wards, Appellee. & for Huffaker for by appellee W. Wicker Per Curiam. Petition Lee by rehearing granted in the Court a the above cause was upon reargument Court cause, appears of it to the and the n that the in opinion judgment previous in and its Court fact- overlooked the reported 622, 133 So. cause, in this 185 *2 case employment contract in this that second involved the of instead allowing defendant commission on sales 12%% North in of to the sales made the State 15%, limited was of opinion judgment this Carolina and it is now the and judgment this cause the in opinion Court that and former a commission of to allow defendant should be modified second by made, making of the all him after on sales 15% Carolina, employment contract, than North in states other by excepting however such sales made defendant and all so to appear of commission or in which refund cancellation by except made him and also all sales have been authorized hereby ground sales; recognized and this cause is and as review to with to court below remanded the instructions conformity in with the evidence enter a decree the and hereby previous this modified. decree of Court as Buford, C.J., Whitfield, Terrell, and Brown and Davis, J.J., concur. J., opinion I first

Ellis, dissenting: think the was correct. in Error,

Bennie vs. State of Maniscalco, Plaintiff in Error. Florida, Defendant Division A. April 14, 1931. Decision filed Error; Pierce, in ZewadsM & Plaintiff for Campbell, Attorney General, Roy and Davis, Fred H. Assistant, for the State. in this case should be judgment

Per Curiam. The the judgment in authority opinion the and on of affirmed so 115. 91, 95 Sou. It 85 State, of Hunter Fla. is case vs. ordered.