Case Name: William S. HOGUE, Appellant, v. P. D. CONNER, a single man, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-12-13
Citations: 305 So. 2d 230
Docket Number: No. 73-991
Parties: William S. HOGUE, Appellant, v. P. D. CONNER, a single man, Appellee.
Judges: OWEN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 305
Pages: 230–230

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.