Tischler v. Apple & Finley

Citations

• 30 Fla. 132

Syllabus

<p>1. The mere objection to a question, not followed by an excejition to the decision of the court overruling the objection presents no question for review in the appellate court. In order that the party objecting to the question may avail himself of such an objection, it is necessary that an exception be taken and noted in the record to the ruling of'the court.</p> <p>2. A building contract required the contractors to run cornice in twenty-five rooms. The owner of the building selected twenty-five rooms to be corniced under the contract, and the contractors ran cornice therein. In a suit by the contractors for extra work in running cornice in.halls and other rooms, one of the contractors was asked, “ did the selection include the halls and store rooms in which the cornices are charged for as extra Held, not error to permit the question to be asked.</p> <p>3. The rule that a party has no right to cross-examine any witness except as to facts and circumstances connected with the matters stated in his direct examination, and if he wishes to examine him as to other matters, he must make the witness his own, is recognized in this State.-</p> <p>4. Where a question propounded on cooss-examination has been improperly excluded, but the record affirmatively shows that the party objecting was not prejudiced by the ruling- in excluding the question, the error is harmless, and will not be cause for reversal of the judgment.</p> <p>3. The same weight is accorded to the findings of fact by a referee as is given to the verdict of a jury.</p>