Melweb Signs, Inc. v. Beefy King, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Melweb Signs, Inc. v. Beefy King, Inc.

226 So. 2d 828, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5357

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 17, 1969·No. No. 2444·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record in light of the appellate presentment and find no harmful or reversible error. We specifically reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to ■ admit the deposition of Tatsuo Rushing, appellees’ witness, for impeachment purposes for the reason that appellant did not properly lay a predicate in accordance with Hancock v. [829]*829McDonald, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 56. Also see 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 240-248.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record in light of the appellate presentment and find no harmful or reversible error. We specifically reject appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to ■ admit the deposition of Tatsuo Rushing, appellees’ witness, for impeachment purposes for the reason that appellant did not properly lay a predicate in accordance with Hancock v. [829]*829McDonald, Fla.App.1963, 148 So.2d 56. Also see 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 240-248.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and WALDEN and REED, JJ., concur.

Melweb Signs, Inc. v. Beefy King, Inc., 226 So. 2d 828, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 5357 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

226 So. 2d 828 (Melweb Signs, Inc. v. Beefy King, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related