Tolin Manufacturing Corp. v. Roy Feiner Handbags, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tolin Manufacturing Corp. v. Roy Feiner Handbags, Inc.

173 So. 2d 714, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4481

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 30, 1965

DocketNo. 64-713

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 173 So. 2d 714 (Tolin Manufacturing Corp. v. Roy Feiner Handbags, Inc.) 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

Tolin Manufacturing Corp. v. Roy Feiner Handbags, Inc., 173 So. 2d 714, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4481 (Fla. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

TILLMAN PEARSON, Judge.

Tolin Manufacturing Corp. was the defendant in the trial court. It appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in an action for breach of contract brought by Roy Feiner Plandbags, Inc. On this appeal the appellant presents two points. The first urges that the contract between the parties was so vague and indefinite that it could not afford a basis for a cause of action for its breach. We find that the record fails to reveal that this point was presented in the trial court. Under this cir[715]*715cumstance, the cause will not be reversed when the objection is raised for the first time in the appellate court.

Appellant’s second point urges that the court should have granted its motion for a new trial because the evidence of damage submitted by the plaintiff was so indefinite as to be purely speculative. This point has merit because the sole evidence of damage found in the record is the testimony of the president and managing officer of the plaintiff corporation. His testimony consisted entirely of approximations and estimates. As such there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict rendered. Silcox v. Corsa, 80 Fla. 677, 86 So. 611 (1920); Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla. 1958, 104 So.2d 10.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant for plaintiff a new trial upon the issue of damages only.

Reversed and remanded.

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

TILLMAN PEARSON, Judge.

Tolin Manufacturing Corp. was the defendant in the trial court. It appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict in an action for breach of contract brought by Roy Feiner Plandbags, Inc. On this appeal the appellant presents two points. The first urges that the contract between the parties was so vague and indefinite that it could not afford a basis for a cause of action for its breach. We find that the record fails to reveal that this point was presented in the trial court. Under this cir[715]*715cumstance, the cause will not be reversed when the objection is raised for the first time in the appellate court.

Appellant’s second point urges that the court should have granted its motion for a new trial because the evidence of damage submitted by the plaintiff was so indefinite as to be purely speculative. This point has merit because the sole evidence of damage found in the record is the testimony of the president and managing officer of the plaintiff corporation. His testimony consisted entirely of approximations and estimates. As such there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict rendered. Silcox v. Corsa, 80 Fla. 677, 86 So. 611 (1920); Ruth v. Sorensen, Fla. 1958, 104 So.2d 10.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to grant for plaintiff a new trial upon the issue of damages only.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 So. 2d 714, 1965 Fla. App. LEXIS 4481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tolin-manufacturing-corp-v-roy-feiner-handbags-inc-fladistctapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack