NEWTON SCHOOL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
KING VAN LINES, INC., A CORPORATION, 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.
Newton School Equipment Company appeals a judgment requiring it to pay King Van Lines for moving services provided to the Ferstens. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that King Van Lines adequately proved its case through undisputed evidence that Newton was notified costs would exceed the estimate and authorized the shipment.
Yes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that King Van Lines presented sufficient competent and uncontradicted testimony and evidence to carry its burden of proof, including undisputed evidence that Newton was notified costs would exceed the estimate and had authorized the shipment.
[1] A trial court's factual findings are presumed correct and will be affirmed on appeal if supported by sufficient competent and uncontradicted testimony and evidence.
[2] A party sustains its burden of proof when the evidence presented is undisputed and complies with normal procedures not contradicted by the opposing party.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The basic question on appeal is factual: Did the plaintiff adequately carry the burden of proof necessary to sustain the judgment found by the court?”
Establishes that the central issue on appeal is whether King Van Lines met its evidentiary burden at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing Van Lines provided an estimate of approximately $1,600 for moving the Ferstens to Florida, based on an estimated load weight of 8,000 pounds. The…
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 Debt Collection cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final judgment and amended final judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, appellee herein, finding the defendant (appellant) to be indebted to the plaintiff appellee, in the principal sum of $3281.92 plus certain costs and interest.
*562The basic question on appeal is factual: Did the plaintiff adequately carry the burden of proof necessary to sustain the judgment found by the court? (This case was tried without a jury.)
In the record before us, a copy being attached to appellant’s reply brief as part of the appendix, appears the “memorandum opinion” of the trial court. In this, the court reviews the facts to be that the ap-pellee, or its agent in California, had been contacted by a Mr. or Mrs. Harvey Fersten in connection with the cost of moving the Ferstens to Florida. An estimate was given in an amount of approximately $1600.00, based upon an estimate load weight of 8000 pounds, with the Ferstens doing a considerable portion of the disassembling and packing. A discussion of transporting an auto was had and because of the cost thereof, about $700 or $800, it was originally decided against shipping the auto. Later there was a telephone conversation between representatives of the appellant and appellee, in which the appellant was advised that the costs would be considerably more than contained in the estimate, and from the testimony of appellee’s witness, appellee was instructed to ship the “belongings” of the Ferstens and bill appellant. An objection to an extra driver was made by appellant, and acceded to by appellee.
The trial court found that the evidence was undisputed that notice was given to defendant that the costs would exceed the estimate, and that the other items were in compliance with “normal shipping procedures,” which were not disputed or contradicted by the defendant.
From this set of facts, sitting as the trier of the facts, the court found that the plaintiff had carried the burden of proof necessary for a favorable judgment for plaintiff.
We agree with this finding by the trial court and there appearing sufficient competent, and uncontradicted testimony and evidence to support the findings of the trial court, we affirm the judgment appealed from.
As to the cross-appeal, we think the matter raised was one in which the trial court could and did exercise proper discretion, and therefore the order in this connection is also affirmed.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.