Elson v. Ratner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Elson v. Ratner

296 So. 2d 604, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 18, 1974

DocketNos. 73-946, 74-245

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 296 So. 2d 604 (Elson v. Ratner) 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

Elson v. Ratner, 296 So. 2d 604, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018 (Fla. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from a final judgment granting specific performance of a contract to sell a 1956 Rolls Royce automobile and an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial judge declining to establish a record of disputed portions of the testimony. Although appellant has presented six points on appeal, we hold that no substantial question of law is presented and affirm the judgment.

We also affirm the interlocutory order and recognize that although the trial judge is charged with the duty of settling disputes to make the record speak the truth, nonetheless, such duty is not indicated where the judge determines he cannot do so. See Rule 3.6(7), FAR, 32 F.S.A.; Travelers Insurance Company v. Agricultural Delivery Service, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 210, and cases cited therein. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case we find that the trial judge is entitled to the presumption that he has performed his duty as well as the circumstances permitted.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated appeals are from a final judgment granting specific performance of a contract to sell a 1956 Rolls Royce automobile and an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial judge declining to establish a record of disputed portions of the testimony. Although appellant has presented six points on appeal, we hold that no substantial question of law is presented and affirm the judgment.

We also affirm the interlocutory order and recognize that although the trial judge is charged with the duty of settling disputes to make the record speak the truth, nonetheless, such duty is not indicated where the judge determines he cannot do so. See Rule 3.6(7), FAR, 32 F.S.A.; Travelers Insurance Company v. Agricultural Delivery Service, Fla.App.1972, 262 So.2d 210, and cases cited therein. Therefore, under the circumstances of this case we find that the trial judge is entitled to the presumption that he has performed his duty as well as the circumstances permitted.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 So. 2d 604, 1974 Fla. App. LEXIS 7018, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elson-v-ratner-fladistctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack