Case Name: Martin D. VonZAMFT, Appellant, v. Jay MORTON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1966-05-03
Citations: 185 So. 2d 726
Docket Number: No. 65-629
Parties: Martin D. VonZAMFT, Appellant, v. Jay MORTON, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Martin D. VonZAMFT, Appellant, v. Jay MORTON, Appellee.
No. 65-629.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
May 3, 1966.
Hansford D. Tyler, Jr., Louis Glick, Miami, for appellant.
Shutts & Bowen and Thomas H. Anderson, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a counterclaim after the plaintiff had been .granted a voluntary dismissal of his complaint. The plaintiff on this appeal urges that he did not receive his day in court because the court denied an adjournment on the last day of the trial.
The trial was before the court without a jury. The trial had been partially completed at a prior date. The court had reserved the entire day for the completion •of the trial. At the time the concluding day of trial was called, the appellant, -through his attorney, announced that he •could not proceed because "Mr. VonZamft has been in New York all week and was rtnable to get back by reason of business -commitments holding him there." Under rthese conditions, where the appellant, counter-defendant, had full notice of the adjourned session of the trial, no abuse of discretion has been made to appear. Maistrosky v. Harvey, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 103. The question of due process is not presented. See Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427, 21 S.Ct. 836, 45 L.Ed. 1165 (1901). Appellant has presented two additional points addressed to the sufficiency of the evidence and the scope of cross examination. The record reveals no reversible error in these particulars.
Affirmed.