Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

179 So. 2d 250

Wilder v. Altman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 26, 1965

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1965-10-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ * * * It is incumbent upon the appellant to present a record which is sufficient to support the points raised on appeal.” (Citations omitted)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 219 So. 2d 456 - Robertson v. State

Relies on 103 So. 2d 226 - Nix v. Koontz · 134 So. 2d 801 - Brown v. Householder · 106 So. 2d 599 - Hall v. Davis

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-10-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1997

15 state decisions

701965197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ben D. WILDER, d/b/a Southland Companies, Appellant,
v.
Donald H. ALTMAN and Ruth B. Altman, his wife, jointly and severally, and Paul Campbell and Laura Campbell, his wife, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 65-107.

¶1District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

October 26, 1965.

¶2George H. Henry, Miami, for appellant.

¶3Harold Strumpf, H.I. Fischbach, Miami, for appellees.

¶4Before HENDRY, C.J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The appellant, a real estate broker, was the plaintiff in the trial court. He appeals a final judgment which was entered after a non-jury trial. The complaint joined two causes of action that arose out of a proposed real estate sale which was not consummated. They were: (1) against the seller for a broker's commission; (2) against the purchaser for one-half the deposit placed on the property. The purchaser, appellee, counterclaimed for a return of the deposit.

¶7The trial judge entered an order granting summary judgment for the purchaser on the broker's claim. At the conclusion of the trial, the court entered final judgment against the broker on his claim against the seller. Judgment was also entered for the purchaser, counter-plaintiff, against the broker, appellant, on the counterclaim.

¶8*251 The three points presented urge that the trial court erred in finding against the broker, appellant, upon his claim for a commission from the proposed seller, appellee. Each of these points require this Court to assume facts which do not appear in the record. It is incumbent upon the appellant to present a record which is sufficient to support the points raised on appeal. Johnson v. Roberts, Fla. 1955, 79 So.2d 425; Greene v. Hoiriis, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 226; Hall v. Davis, Fla.App. 1958, 106 So.2d 599; Brown v. Householder, Fla.App. 1961, 134 So.2d 801. In the absence of a proper record, the judgment must be affirmed. Greene v. Hoiriis, supra; Brown v. Householder, supra.

¶9Affirmed.

/179/so2d/250 · .json · Public domain