Underground Supply Co. v. Mason

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Underground Supply Co. v. Mason

365 So. 2d 447, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16882

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1978

DocketNo. 77-1955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 365 So. 2d 447 (Underground Supply Co. v. Mason) 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

Underground Supply Co. v. Mason, 365 So. 2d 447, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16882 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

BERANEK, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The case was called for a non-jury trial and plaintiff began the presentation of evidence. While presenting the direct testimony of the first witness, an objection to an offered document was made by defendant. This objection prompted a discussion of the case between the Court and counsel. At the conclusion of this discussion the Court dismissed the matter in its entirety. We find the dismissal at this stage of the trial to have been premature and erroneous. See Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b); Rath Co. v. Sun Coast Fruit Company, 186 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and Sapp v. Redding, 178 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The order of dismissal below is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

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

BERANEK, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of an action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien. The case was called for a non-jury trial and plaintiff began the presentation of evidence. While presenting the direct testimony of the first witness, an objection to an offered document was made by defendant. This objection prompted a discussion of the case between the Court and counsel. At the conclusion of this discussion the Court dismissed the matter in its entirety. We find the dismissal at this stage of the trial to have been premature and erroneous. See Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(b); Rath Co. v. Sun Coast Fruit Company, 186 So.2d 806 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); and Sapp v. Redding, 178 So.2d 204 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). The order of dismissal below is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY, C. J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

365 So. 2d 447, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/underground-supply-co-v-mason-fladistctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack