Case Name: DADE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph A. D'AMATO and Gaetana D'Amato, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1959-02-03
Citations: 108 So. 2d 627
Docket Number: No. 58-414
Parties: DADE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph A. D’AMATO and Gaetana D’Amato, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 108
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
DADE ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Joseph A. D’AMATO and Gaetana D’Amato, his wife, Appellees.
No. 58-414.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Feb. 3, 1959.
George H. Henry and Edward A. Ode-kirk, Miami, for appellant.
Akerman & Akerman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant brings 'for review a final judgment entered at the conclusion of a non jury trial. Three assignments of error are presented:
"1. The Court erred in making and entering a Final Judgment, bearing date the 30th day of April, A.D. 1958, and recorded in the records of the Court in Minute Book No. 1131, page 243.
"2. The Court erred in denying Defendant's oral motion for a direct verdict in behalf of the Defendant upon the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case.
"3. The Court erred in denying the introduction by the Defendant of a copy of a letter addressed to Plaintiff, Joseph D'Amato, by Defendant."
Only the first two are argued, and the appellant urges under assignments of error Nos. 1 and 2 that the trial judge sitting without jury and as the finder of fact misconstrued the effect of certain testimony. Under these circumstances the findings and judgment of the trial judge are presumed to be correct and his findings are entitled to the same weight as that of a verdict by a jury. We find there is nothing in the record to overcome that presumption, and we must sustain his findings of fact unless there is no substantial evidence to support them. W. H. Clark Fruit Co. v. Bounds, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 552.
Affirmed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.