Case ID: so2d_305/html/0230-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DOWNEY, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William S. HOGUE, Appellant, v. P. D. CONNER, a single man, Appellee.
    No. 73-991.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Dec. 13, 1974.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1975.
    Eric R. Jones, of Hedman & Cossaboom, Melbourne, for appellant.
    William J. Neale, Melbourne, for appel-lee.
   DOWNEY, Judge.

Having considered the briefs and record herein, we find substantial competent evidence in the record to support the judgment. Two points however should be mentioned.

There appears to be a scrivener’s error in paragraph numbered 2 on page 3 of the final judgment wherein the defendant is directed to execute a note and mortgage. It is apparent the court intended to require the plaintiff to execute said note and mortgage.

The final judgment directs the defendant-appellant to perform the contract in question by conveying to the plaintiff-ap-pellee. It is silent as to appellee’s responsibility to perform his part of the contract by conveying to appellant the property ap-pellee agreed to convey to appellant. At oral argument appellee conceded that it was the intent of the judgment that appel-lee perform his part of the bargain by conveying to appellant the property described in paragraph 2 of appellee’s complaint if appellant still desires to purchase said property. Appellee has announced he stands ready to do so. The final judgment should therefore reflect that plaintiff-ap-pellee is to perform his part of the contract.

With the foregoing clarifications the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.