Case Name: WASH BOWL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-03-22
Citations: 184 So. 2d 674
Docket Number: No. 65-743
Parties: WASH BOWL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 184
Pages: 674–674

Head Matter:
WASH BOWL, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. MIAMI COIN-O-WASH #3, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
No. 65-743.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
March 22, 1966.
Rehearing Denied April 20, 1966.
Marks, Keith & Mack, Miami, for appellant.
Spieler & Tendrich, Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal, the defendant in the trial court seeks review of an adverse final judgment rendered in a non-jury trial.
To reverse, as urged, would cause a forfeiture of some $20,500.00 advanced by the appellee on the purchase price of certain equipment. The final judgment arrived in this court with a presumption of correctness. There is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial judge's ruling. See: Davis v. Levin, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 351; Lamb v. Dade County, Fla.App.1964, 159 So.2d 477; Dade County etc. v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So.2d 198. And, generally, both equity and the law abhor forfeitures. See: McCaskill v.. Union Naval Stores Co., 59 Fla. 571, 52 So. 961; Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561; Boyle v. State, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 693.
Therefore, finding the final judgment within the issues as framed by the pleadings and supported by the evidence as presented to the trier of fact, we affirm.
Affirmed.