Moore v. O'Connor

106 So. 2d 606
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 18, 1958
DocketNo. 58-46
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 106 So. 2d 606 (Moore v. O'Connor) 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
Moore v. O'Connor, 106 So. 2d 606 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The tenant sued the landlord for an injury occasioned by a rotted bannister. Final summary judgment was entered for defendant. Although the landlord had made a covenant for general repairs, it conclusively appeared from the pleadings and depositions on file together with the affidavits that neither the landlord nor the tenant had knowledge of the latent defect. The judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule set forth in Butler v. Maney, 146 Fla. 33, 200 So. 226; Sampson v. Stanley Corp., Fla.1954, 75 So.2d 186; cf. Propper v. Kesner, Fla.1958, 104 So.2d 1.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Richards v. Dodge
150 So. 2d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1963)
Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company
142 So. 2d 115 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 So. 2d 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-oconnor-fladistctapp-1958.