From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Plissner v. Goodall Rubber Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 10, 1968
216 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Opinion

No. 68-83.

December 10, 1968.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, William A. Herin, J.

Tobias Simon, and Beverly Gurevitz, Miami, for appellant.

Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay Kimbrell, and Carl K. Hoffmann, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C.J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.


The only question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court was called upon to construe a lease between the parties and determine whether it prohibited a certain activity.

The suit was for an injunction and, therefore, governed by equitable principles. There was evidence that the parties had by their own acts agreed upon the construction which the court gave to the lease. We conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated error.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Plissner v. Goodall Rubber Company

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Dec 10, 1968
216 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)
Case details for

Plissner v. Goodall Rubber Company

Case Details

Full title:HARRY PLISSNER, APPELLANT, v. GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Dec 10, 1968

Citations

216 So. 2d 228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing Cases

State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. v. Green

An action to recover a sum of money or damages is unmistakably an action at law. St. Lawrence Company, N.V.…