HARRY PLISSNER, APPELLANT,
v.
GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, APPELLEE
HARRY PLISSNER, APPELLANT,
GOODALL RUBBER COMPANY, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, APPELLEE
216 So. 2d 228
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1968)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Misti Green, 579 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…a. 4th DCA 1984); Acquafredda v. Messina, 408 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Temporary relief is, in contrast, clearly an equitable remedy, designed to protect a party from irreparable injury. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610; Plissner v. Goodall Rubber Company, 216 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). In Acquafredda this court ruled that temporary relief may not be issued when the complaint upon which it is based provides no grounds for equitable relief: An action for damages does not become an equitable action merely because…