Anodyne, Inc. v. Allied Plating Supplies, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anodyne, Inc. v. Allied Plating Supplies, Inc.

149 So. 2d 866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 1963

DocketNo. 62-271

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 149 So. 2d 866 (Anodyne, Inc. v. Allied Plating Supplies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anodyne, Inc. v. Allied Plating Supplies, Inc., 149 So. 2d 866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment. Plain tiff sued to recover for services performed, alleging that by an oral contract it had been engaged to design and supervise the construction and equipping of a plant. In a 3-day trial before a jury a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $16,555 principal plus certain interest and costs. No error is demonstrated, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. One contention made by appellant was that the court committed error by refusing to grant a mistrial when defendant sought to terminate the services of his attorney. During trial on the third day, defendant’s attorney presented to the court a letter from the president of defendant corporation expressing such intention. No application for continuance was made. The request made by defendant’s attorney was for a mistrial. In that situation, nearing the end of the trial, it was well within the discretion of the trial judge, in the absence of a proper and sufficient application for continuance, to require the trial to proceed. The motion for mistrial under those circumstances was inappropriate, and the order denying it was proper. The appellant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from an adverse judgment. Plain tiff sued to recover for services performed, alleging that by an oral contract it had been engaged to design and supervise the construction and equipping of a plant. In a 3-day trial before a jury a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $16,555 principal plus certain interest and costs. No error is demonstrated, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. One contention made by appellant was that the court committed error by refusing to grant a mistrial when defendant sought to terminate the services of his attorney. During trial on the third day, defendant’s attorney presented to the court a letter from the president of defendant corporation expressing such intention. No application for continuance was made. The request made by defendant’s attorney was for a mistrial. In that situation, nearing the end of the trial, it was well within the discretion of the trial judge, in the absence of a proper and sufficient application for continuance, to require the trial to proceed. The motion for mistrial under those circumstances was inappropriate, and the order denying it was proper. The appellant’s remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 So. 2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anodyne-inc-v-allied-plating-supplies-inc-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack