MAX BAUER MEAT PACKER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
GURRENTZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1973-07-17
No. 72-1331
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
280 So. 2d 508 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the exclusion of a deposition or the computation of damages.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract to sell frozen meat and obtained a judgment after a non-jury trial. Both parties appealed certain ruli…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff after a non-jury trial. The action was brought for breach of contract to sell a large quantity of frozen meat. Although the appellee successfully recovered a judgment in the trial court, it has nevertheless cross-assigned error.

Appellant’s points on appeal urge that the action was barred by the statute of frauds and that the evidence was insufficient. We find that neither point presents error on this record.

Appellee’s points raised by cross-assignment urge error upon the court’s refusal to admit a deposition into evidence and an alleged error in the computation of damages.- The use of the deposition at trial was barred pursuant to Rule 1.330, RCP, 30 F.S.A. A review of the record on this point does not reveal a clear abuse of discretion in view of the provision of the rule that a deposition may not be used when it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party attempting to present the deposition. Several factors enter into this determination, and if the ruling of the trial court had been made at pretrial conference so that the plaintiff would have been on notice that the witness would have to be available at trial, we would have given more serious consideration to the question of a possible abuse of discretion.

Appellee’s second point directed to the amount of the damages is insufficient in view of the rule stated in City of Pensacola for Use Chadbourne v. Quina, 138 Fla. 510, 189 So. 688 (1939).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Donnie Wayne Parker v. State, 284 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1973)
    …Certiorari denied. 280 So. 2d 508. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and McCAIN, JJ., concur. ERVIN, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw