Kosaber v. Peterson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kosaber v. Peterson

136 So. 2d 366

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 1962

DocketNo. 61-171

StatusPublished

This text of 136 So. 2d 366 (Kosaber v. Peterson) 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

Kosaber v. Peterson, 136 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellees prevailed in an ejectment action involving a dispute as to the location of a property line between lots, and the defendant appealed. The evidence supports the verdict. The description of the property in the complaint and in the verdict and judgment was sufficient to meet the requirements of § 70.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for a description by metes and bounds, lot number “or other certain description”. See Florida Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Robbins, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 193. The $35 damages included in the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence. Appellees’ brief concedes it was not for loss of use or for rental value, but was for the cost of a survey. That was not an allowable element of damages under the ejectment statute, §§ 70.01-70.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The judgment is affirmed except as to the damages of $35 awarded therein as to which it is reversed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellees prevailed in an ejectment action involving a dispute as to the location of a property line between lots, and the defendant appealed. The evidence supports the verdict. The description of the property in the complaint and in the verdict and judgment was sufficient to meet the requirements of § 70.05, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., for a description by metes and bounds, lot number “or other certain description”. See Florida Coca Cola Bottling Company v. Robbins, Fla.1955, 81 So.2d 193. The $35 damages included in the verdict and judgment is not supported by the evidence. Appellees’ brief concedes it was not for loss of use or for rental value, but was for the cost of a survey. That was not an allowable element of damages under the ejectment statute, §§ 70.01-70.12, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. The judgment is affirmed except as to the damages of $35 awarded therein as to which it is reversed.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 So. 2d 366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kosaber-v-peterson-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack