Case Name: George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Appellee; George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Administrator of the Estate of Linda Johns, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-04-18
Citations: 211 So. 2d 233
Docket Number: Nos. I-185, I-225
Parties: George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Appellee. George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Administrator of the Estate of Linda Johns, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 211
Pages: 233–234

Head Matter:
George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Appellee. George RIVENBARK, Jr., Leslie Eugene Morgan and E. D. Middleton Produce Incorporated, Appellants, v. Darrell JOHNS, Administrator of the Estate of Linda Johns, Deceased, Appellee.
Nos. I-185, I-225.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.
April 18, 1968.
See also Fla.App., 205 So.2d 711.
Beggs, Lane, Daniel, Gaines & Davis, Pensacola, for appellants.
Johnson & Johnson, Milton, and Campbell & Rice, Crestview, for appellees.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF COST JUDGMENT
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Rivenbark in accordance with Rule 3.16, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A., petitions this court for review of cost judgments entered by the Circuit Court after remand of these two consolidated cases.
It is Rivenbark's position that Section 57.071, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as amended in 1967, mandatorily requires the assessment of bond premiums and expenses of the court reporter as costs. Prior to the 1967 amendment, the statute appeared as Section 58.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and it provided that the allowance of bond premiums as costs was a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. Notice of appeal in one of these causes was filed on September 3, 1966, and in the other cause on September 22, 1966, and at that time the appellate costs were incurred. It is our opinion, and we so hold, that the 1967 legislative enactment does not apply to the settlement of the costs in these causes.
The petition is denied.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.