Rose v. Yuille

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Citation88 So.2d 318
PartiesRonald ROSE, doing business as Florida Real Estate Exchange, Appellant, v. Charles L. YUILLE and Eleanor Yuille, husband and wife, Appellees.
Decision Date30 May 1956

Sommer, Frank & Weston, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Wm. J. Pruitt, Miami, for appellees.

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellant, a real estate broker, alleged he entered into a contract with appellees to sell certain real estate in Monroe County. Contending that he produced a purchaser, ready, able and willing to buy at the consideration agreed on and that appellees refused to sell, appellant instituted this suit to recover damages against defendants for their refusal to comply with the contract. In their amended answer defendants denied the material allegations of the complaint or that they ever employed plaintiff to sell their lands. A pretrial conference was ordered for February 4, 1955, and the cause was set for trial before the court without a jury February 21 following the pretrial conference.

At the pretrial conference the court ordered the plaintiff to reveal the names of all witnesses he expected to question at the trial. Later the plaintiff learned of a material witness and by his counsel filed 'Notice of Disclosure' with Clerk of Circuit Court and mailed copy thereof to defendants giving the name of said witness as C. L. Macurda. The cause came on for trial as set, during the course of which the plaintiff called the witness C. L. Macurda to the stand. No objection was made to the witness testifying. Plaintiff advised the court that at the pretrial conference the name of the witness was not familiar to him, however, several days before the trial by 'Notice of Disclosure,' defendants' counsel was notified that the witness would be called. The court refused to permit the witness to testify stating, 'I am determined to prevent any surprises at trial.' At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered judgment for defendants from which this appeal was prosecuted.

The point for determination is whether or not the trial court committed error in refusing to permit the witness C. L. Macurda to testify at the trial.

Circumstances might arise in which such a refusal would have been an abuse of discretion but not so in this case. While it is shown that the name of the witness was not disclosed at the pretrial conference as the court directed, it is shown that the plaintiff acted promptly to secure attendance of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Bova v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • February 25, 1982
    ...96 (1969); Pendergraft v. State, 191 So.2d 830 (Miss.1966); Commonwealth v. Vivian, 426 Pa. 192, 231 A.2d 301 (1967).5 Rose v. Yuille, 88 So.2d 318 (Fla.1956); Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130 (1925); Wilson v. Johnson, 51 Fla. 370, 41 So. 395 (1906); Jenkins v. State, 31 Fla. 196,......
  • Binger v. King Pest Control
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • July 16, 1981
    ...only prior decision of this Court directly addressing the issue of witness disclosure leaned toward this fourth approach. Rose v. Yuille, 88 So.2d 318 (Fla.1956). In that case the trial court's pretrial order had directed the plaintiff to reveal the names of all his witnesses. Four days bef......
  • Lugo v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 25, 1986
    ...would testify, or (2) the court strictly exercised its discretion to exclude a witness where no surprise was shown. See Rose v. Yuille, 88 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla.1956); Norge Laundry Co. v. Prestridge, 335 So.2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 326 (Fla.1977); McDonald Air Cond......
  • Bowen v. Manuel
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 15, 1962
    ...conducting the trial of a cause. Alford v. Barnett National Bank, 137 Fla. 564, 188 So. 322; Hahn v. State, Fla., 58 So.2d 188; Rose v. Yuille, Fla., 88 So.2d 318; Kennick v. State, Fla.App., 107 So.2d 59. When the proper administration of justice makes it imperative, the trial courts of th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT