From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

WASH BOWL v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 20, 1966
184 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

No. 65-743.

March 22, 1966. Rehearing Denied April 20, 1966.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Ralph O. Cullen, J.

Marks, Keith Mack, Miami, for appellant.

Spieler Tendrich, Horton Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C.J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.


By this appeal, the defendant in the trial court seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in a non-jury trial.

To reverse, as urged, would cause a forfeiture of some $20,500.00 advanced by the appellee on the purchase price of certain equipment. The final judgment arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge's ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App. 1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App. 1964, 159 So.2d 477; Dade County etc. v. Pepper, Fla.App. 1964, 168 So.2d 198. And, generally, both equity and the law abhor forfeitures. See: McCaskill v. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571, 52 So. 961; Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561; Boyle v. State, Fla. 1950, 47 So.2d 693.

Therefore, finding the final judgment within the issues as framed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence as presented to the trier of fact, we affirm.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

WASH BOWL v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 20, 1966
184 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

WASH BOWL v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3

Case Details

Full title:WASH BOWL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 20, 1966

Citations

184 So. 2d 674 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1966)

Citing Cases

WASH BOWL, INC. v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH NO. 3, INC

Certiorari denied without opinion. 184 So.2d 674.…

Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Sisung

We affirm the entry of the judgment, there being insufficient evidence to support the affirmative defenses…