Court Opinion

ID: 9767106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:10:08.422246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.650289
License: Public Domain

WIEAND, Judge,
concurring.
I join the majority’s holding that an order denying post-trial motions is not an order which is final and appealable and that an appeal will lie only from the judgment thereafter entered. In the instant case, judgment has now been entered; and, therefore, the appeal is presently before this court for decision.
On the merits, I agree that the judgment in favor of TEDCO Construction Corporation must be affirmed. The trial court’s finding that there was no agreement by TEDCO Construction Corporation to pay for work ordered by O’Neil Personal Care Corporation and performed by Johnston the *296Florist, Inc. is amply supported by competent evidence. Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider whether an oral agreement by TEDCO Construction Corporation to pay for such work, if it had existed, would have been enforceable under the Statute of Frauds relating to a promise to pay the debt of another.