Case Name: HIGH, CLARKE & FENEIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1970-07-28
Citations: 238 So. 2d 169
Docket Number: No. 69-1046
Parties: HIGH, CLARKE & FENEIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 238
Pages: 169–169

Head Matter:
HIGH, CLARKE & FENEIS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Appellee.
No. 69-1046.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 28, 1970.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1970.
George & McQuade, Miami, for appellant.
Bolles, Goodwin, Ryskamp & Ware, and Robert Lane, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The defendant counterclaimant appeals from a final judgment for the plaintiff after a jury found for the appellee upon its claim and against the appellant upon its counterclaim.
The sole point presented on appeal asserts that the instruction given by the trial court incorrectly stated the law applicable to the case. The record reveals that the judgment must be affirmed without our passing upon the sufficiency of the instruction, because appellant did not raise at the time of the charge conference the objection it urges here. Its sole objection below was so general in nature as to fail to inform the court of the objection raised here. Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App. 1965, 174 So.2d 85, 87.
Affirmed.