Rodgers v. Kajax Realty Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodgers v. Kajax Realty Co.

165 So. 2d 259, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4398

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1964

DocketNo. F-153

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 2d 259 (Rodgers v. Kajax Realty 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

Rodgers v. Kajax Realty Co., 165 So. 2d 259, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4398 (Fla. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were plaintiffs in a declaratory decree proceeding instituted under F.S. Chapter 87, F.S.A., seeking forfeiture of an executory contract under which appellants and appellees hold substantial property rights. Appellants were also defendants in a common law action brought by appellees to recover a money judgment for sums claimed to be due them under the contract for which forfeiture was sought in the action for declaratory relief. These suits were consolidated, tried without a jury, and disposed of in a single combined decree and judgment rendered by the trial court.

Appellants contend that the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a forfeiture by defendants of the contract in question; erred in his finding of the amount due ap-pellees under the contract; erred by awarding excessive attorney fees to appel-lees; and, erred in refusing to allow costs to appellants in either the chancery or common law action.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and find that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of •fact as set forth in the decree appealed. Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, or that he applied to the facts an incorrect rule of law, the judgment and decree appealed are severally affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants were plaintiffs in a declaratory decree proceeding instituted under F.S. Chapter 87, F.S.A., seeking forfeiture of an executory contract under which appellants and appellees hold substantial property rights. Appellants were also defendants in a common law action brought by appellees to recover a money judgment for sums claimed to be due them under the contract for which forfeiture was sought in the action for declaratory relief. These suits were consolidated, tried without a jury, and disposed of in a single combined decree and judgment rendered by the trial court.

Appellants contend that the trial judge erred in refusing to declare a forfeiture by defendants of the contract in question; erred in his finding of the amount due ap-pellees under the contract; erred by awarding excessive attorney fees to appel-lees; and, erred in refusing to allow costs to appellants in either the chancery or common law action.

We have carefully examined the record on appeal and find that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of •fact as set forth in the decree appealed. Appellants having failed to clearly demonstrate an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, or that he applied to the facts an incorrect rule of law, the judgment and decree appealed are severally affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 2d 259, 1964 Fla. App. LEXIS 4398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-v-kajax-realty-co-fladistctapp-1964.