C. G. J. CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SOL ENGEL ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
C.G.J. Corporation appealed an interlocutory order overruling its objection to evidence of a collateral agreement in a specific performance suit. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that evidentiary rulings made during trial are not separately appealable but rather reviewable only after final judgment.
An evidentiary ruling overruling an objection made during trial is not separately appealable. Such rulings are reviewable only upon appeal from the final decree, where they may be assigned as error.
“Although interlocutory orders in equity suits are appealable (rule 4.2 F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.), that was not an appealable order. It was no more than a ruling on evidence made during the course of the trial, on the occasion of objection by counsel to a question propounded to a witness and to certain offered documentary evidence.”
Establishes that evidentiary rulings, even when formally documented, are distinct from appealable interlocutory orders in equity.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring trial of a specific performance contract action, the trial court (chancellor) overruled C.G.J. Corporation's objection to the introduction of e…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
This is the second appeal in this cause. Earlier, we affirmed an order of the trial court denying a motion to dismiss the complaint. See C. G. J. Corporation v. Hurwitz, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So.2d 44.
The present appeal is from an order, made during trial of the cause, overruling an objection to the introduction of evidence of a collateral agreement in a suit for specific performance of a contract. When the objection was made the chancellor recessed the trial, received memoranda of law and took the matter under advisement. His later ruling, by which he overruled the objection, was put in the form of a written order. Although interlocutory orders in equity suits are appealable (rule 4.2 F.A.R., 31 F.S.A.), that was not an appealable order. It was no more than a ruling on evidence made during the course of the trial, on the occasion of objection by counsel to a question propounded to a witness and to certain offered documentary evidence.
If rulings made by a trial judge in the course of a trial of an equity suit sustaining or overruling objections made during the presentation of evidence, were separately appealable, the progress of trials would be unduly impeded. Rulings on the admissibility vel non of evidence are reviewable on an appeal taken from final decree where any such ruling may be assigned as error. Appellate courts must guard against intrusion and encroachment upon the trial jurisdiction of a lower court, and an appellate court should not inject itself into the midst of a trial and undertake to direct the trial judge in the conduct of the case. So far as practicable, the trial should proceed to completion without interruptions *432by the appellate court, and a review following final decree is preferable to piecemeal review en route to a decision. See Sax Enterprises v. David and Dash, Fla.1958, 107 So.2d 612; Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 411; McGuire v. Drew, 83 Cal. 225, 23 P. 312.
For the reasons stated, the merit of the question presented is not determined, and the appeal must be dismissed
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowen v. Willard, 340 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1976)…b)(3), Fla.Const. . See also Messina v. Baldi, 135 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1961). . Clement v. Aztec Sales, Inc., 297 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974). . See Matter of Vermeulen, 122 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960). . See, for example, C.G.J. Corp. v. Engel, 135 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). . Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74, 80 (Fla.1975).…
-
Cent. Nat'l Ins. Co. OF Omaha v. Jozef Piotrowski et ux., 142 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…ef states: “ * * * The Courts of the State of Florida have decided this point so often that it is now axiomatic in our law, e. g. Douglas-Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Insurance Agents Finance Corp., 46 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1950); C. G. J. Corp. v. Engel, 135 So. 2d 431 3rd District, Fla. [App.] 1961). The leading case for this proposition in the State of Florida appears to be Douglas Guardian Warehouse Corp. v. Insurance Agents Finance Corporation, supra. In that case, the court was faced with a notice of appeal w…
Authorities Cited
- SAX Enters., Inc. v. David & Dash, Inc., 107 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1958)
- Bd. OF Comm'rs OF State Insts. v. The Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co. cum testamento annexo, 101 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- C. G. J. Corp. v. Hurwitz, 123 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)