Case Name: Paul GUTEN, Appellant, v. WEIS, VOISIN, CANNON, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1971-01-26
Citations: 243 So. 2d 441
Docket Number: No. 70-437
Parties: Paul GUTEN, Appellant, v. WEIS, VOISIN, CANNON, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 243
Pages: 441–442

Head Matter:
Paul GUTEN, Appellant, v. WEIS, VOISIN, CANNON, INC., Appellee.
No. 70-437.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 26, 1971.
Morris J. Friedman and Judith A. Brech-ner, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Goodman & Holtzman, Miami, for appel-lee. ;
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant Guten appeals a final judgment rendered in a non-jury trial in favor of appellee-plaintiff Weis, Voisin, Cannon, Inc., a stock brokerage firm. The stock brokerage firm sued appellant for the difference in price between the amount paid for certain over-the-counter stock ordered by him and the amount received on its sale, some twenty-six days later, because appellant refused to accept and pay for the stock.
The primary thrust of appellant's case deals with the correctness of the lower court's finding's of fact and conclusions of law with regard to appellant's purchase order and the sale of such stock by the ap-pellee.
We apply the well established rule of law that the trial court's finding of fact and conclusions of law come to the appellate court with a presumption of correctness and will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. No reversible error having been demonstrated, we therefore affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.