Case Name: Harry PLISSNER, Appellant, v. GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1968-12-10
Citations: 216 So. 2d 228
Docket Number: No. 68-83
Parties: Harry PLISSNER, Appellant, v. GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 216
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
Harry PLISSNER, Appellant, v. GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation, Appellee.
No. 68-83.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Dec. 10, 1968.
Tobias Simon, and Beverly Gurevitz, Miami, for appellant.
Dixon, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, and Carl K. Hoffmann, Miami, for appellee.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The only question presented upon this appeal is whether the trial judge's finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court was called upon to construe a lease between the parties and determine whether it prohibited a certain activity.
The suit was for an injunction and, therefore, governed by equitable principles. There was evidence that the parties had by their own acts agreed upon the construction which the court gave to the lease. We conclude that the appellant has not demonstrated error.
Affirmed.