High, Clarke & Feneis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

High, Clarke & Feneis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co.

238 So. 2d 169, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5926

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 28, 1970

DocketNo. 69-1046

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 238 So. 2d 169 (High, Clarke & Feneis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co.) 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

High, Clarke & Feneis, Inc. v. Public Service Mutual Insurance Co., 238 So. 2d 169, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5926 (Fla. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant counterclaimant appeals from a final judgment for the plaintiff after a jury found for the appellee upon its claim and against the appellant upon its counterclaim.

The sole point presented on appeal asserts that the instruction given by the trial court incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case. The record reveals that the judgment must be affirmed without our passing upon the sufficiency of the instruction, because appellant did not raise at the time of the charge conference the objection it urges here. Its sole objection below was so general in nature as to fail to inform the court of the objection raised here. Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 85, 87.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant counterclaimant appeals from a final judgment for the plaintiff after a jury found for the appellee upon its claim and against the appellant upon its counterclaim.

The sole point presented on appeal asserts that the instruction given by the trial court incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case. The record reveals that the judgment must be affirmed without our passing upon the sufficiency of the instruction, because appellant did not raise at the time of the charge conference the objection it urges here. Its sole objection below was so general in nature as to fail to inform the court of the objection raised here. Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 85, 87.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 So. 2d 169, 1970 Fla. App. LEXIS 5926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/high-clarke-feneis-inc-v-public-service-mutual-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack