The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1892-06-25
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.
| HeadnOtes to Decisions June Term.
1892.
Philip Tischler, appellant, VS.. Apple &
Finley, appellees-Duval comfy
MABRY, j.:
l. The mere objection to a question. not
| followed by an exception 10 the decision OF
| the court overruling the objection, presents
no question for review in the appellate
court. In order that the party objecting
to the question may avail himself Of such
an objection, i. is necessary that an excep-
ton be taken and noted in the record to
the ruling OF the court.
| 2. A building contract required the con.
tractors to run cornlce in twenty-five rooms.
The owner of the building selected twenty
five rooms TO be corniced under the contract,
and the contractors ran cornice therein.
In Il suit by the contractors for extra work
in running cornice in halls and other
rooms, one of the contractors was asked
did the selection include the halls and
store rooms in which the cornices are
charged for as extra?" Held, not error to
|
3. The rule that party has no right to
cross-eXamine any witness except as to
facts and circumstances connected with
the matters stated in his direct examina-
tion, and if he wishes TO examine him as
to other matters, he must make the witness
his own, is recognized in this state.
| t. Where a question propounded on
Icross-examinatlon has been improperly eX.
cluded, but the record affirmAtively shows
that the party objecting was not prejudiced
by the ruling in excluding the question
the error is harmless, AID viii not be cause
for reversal of the judgment.
5. The same weight is accorded to the
findings of fact by a referee as is given tC
the verdict ofa jury.
Judgment affirmed.
Hariridge & Young, for appellant
Lggett Il Liggett, for appelees.
City of Orlando, appellant, VS.. G. NJ
Heard, appellee-Orange county.
MABRY, j.:
| 1. In declaration against municipal
ity it is alleged that the ci1y possessed
and controlled certain sidewalks on
Church street and Orange avenue in the
city, and suffered the same to be and re-
main in bad and unsafe repair and condi-
ton. and that divers planks, wherewitf
the said::sidewalk was laid, were suffered
to be and remain broken and unfastened,
by means whereof plaintiff was injured
Held. on demurrer to the declaration
that it was not bad because the place
where the cause Of action arose is MOI
more specifically set forth further, thai
if the declaration in respect to the allega
ton of locality was calculated to preju-
Idice or embarrass fair trial, the defend
ant could have applied to the court, un
der the statute. to have it amended II
this particular.
g In actions against municipal c'rpOr
atoms for injuries received by reason o
defective streets or sidewalks, it is not
necessary to aver in the declaration thai
plaintiff was at the time Of the injury
exercising reasonable care, and the injury
happened without his fault. Such az
lallegation is substan TALLY involved in tht
Iaverment that the injury complained o.
was occasioned by the defendants negli-
gence.
8. In actions against municipal cOrpOr
ations for injuries resulting from a fail
ure TO repair streets or sidewalks, the gis'
Of the acti IN is negligence on the part o.
the defendant corporation. Such corpor
lations are required to exercise reasonable
diligence in repairing defects in streets ano
side ewalks, after the unsafe condition of the
street or sidewalk is known, or ought tt
Ihave been known, to it, or it's officers hav'
ling authority to act Tor it, and it II
Essential to liability in such cases L
lalleye in the declaration facts which
lshow negligence ON the part of the cor
poration. A general allegation that tht
municipal corporation ncgligently snf
lfered and permitted the street or side
walk 10 remain out of repair without
alleging knowledge Of the defect, tht
time it was permitted to remain out oi
repair. or OF her facts showing negligence
on the part of the municipal body, VII
mot be sufficient.
Judgment reversed.
| Alex St. Clair-Abrams, for appellant
Andrew johnson, for appellee.
iC. o. Livingston, appellant, vs.. Thomas
Anderson, appellee.-Duval county.
MABRY. j.:
/. To a declaration in covenant alleging
performance of ell covenants On the par
LOT plautf, and failure of performances O
1.-The part of defendant, the defendant pleade'
tha, the plaintiff has not preiormed an
IcaTried out the contract set forth 10 the dec
llsraiion % he agreed 10 DO, and did no
. perform the work therein mentioned ia
!. Iihifhfai and workmanlike manner: Held
Ion demurrer, that the plea was bad in DC
| ,Dc;fx;nr ~ fhA nnud;tfon ~ nr,v. dkfinnA III