OWEN LOCKWOOD AND MARIE LOCKWOOD, HIS WIFE, D/B/A LOCKWOOD MOBILE HOMES, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEANNE TEST, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the trial court did not err in taxing costs for depositions, as the decision falls within the court's discretion and the depositions served a useful purpose.
Plaintiff sued for commissions from mobile home sales based on an oral agreement. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding $1,497.75. The de…
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 Recovery Of Commissions cases and more on FLexlaw
Recovery of commissions claimed for sales of mobile homes pursuant to an oral agreement was sought below by Jeanne Test, plaintiff-appellee. The jury found in her favor, and an appeal from the judgment consequent upon the verdict has been brought by defendants-appellants, Owen Lockwood and Marie Lockwood, his wife, doing business as Lockwood Mobile Homes.
The testimony as to terms of the oral agreement was in conflict, appellants as defendants below arguing that the sales made by appellee were never completed pursuant to its terms. Appellee, testifying to the contrary upon this subject, claimed and the jury awarded, the sum of $1,497.75 as the total amount due as commissions for sale of seven mobile homes or trailers. Thus, the jury, weighing and resolving the evidence with its conflicts, returned a verdict in favor of appellee, obviously accepting her version. The judgment entered upon the verdict should not be disturbed.
*143Appellants contend that the court erred in taxing against them the cost of depositions not offered in evidence. Section 58.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides, “The court may in its discretion allow as taxable costs in a civil action expense of the court reporter for per diem, transcribing proceedings of the court and depositions.” The matter of cost for depositions, therefore, is generally within the discretion of the trial court. The trial judge, in taxing the costs, specifically found in his order that the depositions for which the costs had been allowed had served a useful purpose. See Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1961, 128 So.2d 435. We do not find that he erred as to this.
Other points raised by appellants have been considered, hut this court has discerned no prejudicial error which could result in a reversal. The judgment, appealed is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and KANNER and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cohn v. Fla. Nat'l Bank AT Orlando, 223 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…scretion. However, the issue of damages was not tried and certain costs pertaining to this issue were assessed. Costs of depositions are taxable if they serve a useful purpose, even though not offered into evidence. Lockwood v. Test, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So. 2d 142. The medical witnesses were not called and the costs of their depositions would not be taxable, in that the issue being served thereby was not tried. Fees for necessary witnesses who are subpoenaed and attend court, but not actually examined, are t…
-
Cnty. OF ST. Lucie & Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Browning, 358 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…position” and hold that such costs are taxable if they serve a useful purpose. See Cohn v. Florida National Bank at Orlando, 223 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 4 DCA 1969); Buyer Finance Corporation v. Oliveros, 196 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3 DCA 1967); Lockwood v. Test, 160 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2 DCA 1964). It is not at all clear that the Supreme Court in Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones, supra, intended that under no circumstances may costs of deposition copies be taxed against a losing party. We think a better reasoned rule is tha…
-
Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Scott, 311 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)…tance, the test for recovering the cost of such taking should not be whether the depositions are offered in evidence or are used extensively in impeachment of witnesses; rather, the test should be the one suggested in Lockwood v. Test, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 142, and Fatolitis v. Fatolitis, Fla. App.1973, 271 So. 2d 227, namely, whether the taking of the depositions in question served a useful purpose. This test will foster the reasonable and judicious use of the discovery process by denying an allowance of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 128 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)