Lockwood v. Test, 4020
| Decision Date | 31 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 4020,4020 |
| Citation | 160 So.2d 142 |
| Parties | Owen LOCKWOOD and Marie Lockwood, his wife, d/b/a Lockwood Mobile Homes, Appellants, v. Jeanne TEST, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Raymond E. Ford, of Ford & Tye, Fort Pierce, for appellants.
James E. Alderman of Brown & Alderman, Fort Pierce, for appellee.
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.
Appellants 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 425. We do not find that he erred as to this.
Other points raised by appellants have been considered, but this court has discerned no prejudicial error which could result in a reversal. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telemundo Network, Inc. v. Spanish Television Services, Inc., 3D00-209.
...4th DCA 1991) (finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions regarding the terms of an oral agreement); Lockwood v. Test, 160 So.2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964) Telemundo also argues that it was entitled to a new trial because of plaintiff counsel's improper closing argument at tr......
-
St. Lucie County v. Browning
...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 circumstan......
-
Fatolitis v. Fatolitis, 71--835
...of depositions have been held to be taxable if they serve a useful purpose, even though not introduced into evidence, Lockwood v. Test, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 142; Buyer Finance Corporation v. Oliveros, Fla.App.1967, 196 So.2d 451; Cohn v. Florida National Bank at Orlando, Fla.App.1969, 22......
-
Buyer Finance Corp. v. Oliveros, 66--312
...101 So.2d 892. Considering the cost of the deposition and the purpose served, we find no abuse of discretion. See Lockwood v. Test, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 142. Upon this Court's own motion it has been noted that this record does not reflect a final judgment in the garnishment proceeding. T......