Barklap Construction Corp. v. Lind

Supreme Court of Florida

Barklap Construction Corp. v. Lind

135 So. 784, 102 Fla. 100

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1931

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 So. 784 (Barklap Construction Corp. v. Lind) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barklap Construction Corp. v. Lind, 135 So. 784, 102 Fla. 100 (Fla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— In this case defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in the court below, the declaration being framed in the common counts.

Pleas were filed by the defendants. Demurrer was filed to a special plea. The demurrer was sustained. Issue was joined on the first plea. Trial was had which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered on the verdict. The special plea set up no defense, evidence of which could not be introduced under the general issue. Therefore, there was no error in sustaining the demurrer.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and judgment. The bill of exceptions fails to include all of the evidence adduced upon the trial. There is attached within the cover of what purports to be the transcript of the record a number of what purports to have been exhibits, which such exhibits are in no way authenticated so that this court may take cognizance of them and, therefore, they cannot be considered in determining the case. This becomes immaterial, however, in view of the fact that there is substantial evidence disclosed by the record to sustain the verdict and judgment.

We may also say here that a large part of what has *102 been1 referred to as exhibits appear to be photostatie copies and if they were properly authenticated they would deserve no consideration at the hands of the Court because they violate Rule 11 of this Court as amended February 7, 1928. That rule provides that photostatie copies may be used only when such photostatie reproduction is sharp and clearly legible in black letters on white background. The rule further provides, “No photostatie copy of any document written in long-hand shall be embraced in a transcript unless it is certified by the trial judge that a facsimile reproduction thereof is essential to the consideration of the cause”.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, JJ., concur. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

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

Per Curiam.

— In this case defendant in error sued the plaintiff in error in the court below, the declaration being framed in the common counts.

Pleas were filed by the defendants. Demurrer was filed to a special plea. The demurrer was sustained. Issue was joined on the first plea. Trial was had which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered on the verdict. The special plea set up no defense, evidence of which could not be introduced under the general issue. Therefore, there was no error in sustaining the demurrer.

There is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict and judgment. The bill of exceptions fails to include all of the evidence adduced upon the trial. There is attached within the cover of what purports to be the transcript of the record a number of what purports to have been exhibits, which such exhibits are in no way authenticated so that this court may take cognizance of them and, therefore, they cannot be considered in determining the case. This becomes immaterial, however, in view of the fact that there is substantial evidence disclosed by the record to sustain the verdict and judgment.

We may also say here that a large part of what has *102 been1 referred to as exhibits appear to be photostatie copies and if they were properly authenticated they would deserve no consideration at the hands of the Court because they violate Rule 11 of this Court as amended February 7, 1928. That rule provides that photostatie copies may be used only when such photostatie reproduction is sharp and clearly legible in black letters on white background. The rule further provides, “No photostatie copy of any document written in long-hand shall be embraced in a transcript unless it is certified by the trial judge that a facsimile reproduction thereof is essential to the consideration of the cause”.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Affirmed.

Buford, C.J., and Ellis and Brown, JJ., concur. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 784, 102 Fla. 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barklap-construction-corp-v-lind-fla-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack