Barkett v. Hardy

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barkett v. Hardy

271 So. 2d 782

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 22, 1973

DocketNo. 72-729

StatusPublished

This text of 271 So. 2d 782 (Barkett v. Hardy) 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

Barkett v. Hardy, 271 So. 2d 782 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, who was also counter-claimant, appeals a final judgment rendered for the plaintiff-appellee and counter-defendant after a trial by jury before the court. The appellee claimed payment for work done under an oral contract to improve appellant’s property. Three of appellant’s five points argue the weight of the evidence. A review of the record in the light of the briefs convinces us that these points do not show error upon authority of Garcia v. Lujando, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 725; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hicks, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 685; Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 50; and Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 492. The remaining points claim error upon the admission or rejection of certain evidence. The admission of the exhibit objected to was not error because no proper objection was made to the admission. Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., Inc., Fla. 1953, 68 So.2d 357. The record does not reveal the ruling to which appellant objects upon the allegedly tendered exhibits which were rejected.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, who was also counter-claimant, appeals a final judgment rendered for the plaintiff-appellee and counter-defendant after a trial by jury before the court. The appellee claimed payment for work done under an oral contract to improve appellant’s property. Three of appellant’s five points argue the weight of the evidence. A review of the record in the light of the briefs convinces us that these points do not show error upon authority of Garcia v. Lujando, Fla.App.1971, 253 So.2d 725; State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Hicks, Fla.App.1966, 184 So.2d 685; Old Equity Life Insurance Company v. Levenson, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 50; and Tanenbaum v. Biscayne Osteopathic Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 492. The remaining points claim error upon the admission or rejection of certain evidence. The admission of the exhibit objected to was not error because no proper objection was made to the admission. Lineberger v. Domino Canning Co., Inc., Fla. 1953, 68 So.2d 357. The record does not reveal the ruling to which appellant objects upon the allegedly tendered exhibits which were rejected.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 So. 2d 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barkett-v-hardy-fladistctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack