HomeMy WebLinkAbout1436 - page 2 -
Had the work as ordered by the defendant cured the defect, there
would have been a eatiafied cuatwner for a nominal charge. For the anwunt
charged for labor 535-- the defendant well k~ew or ehould hava knorm
the calculated riek he took. The Court feels that the charge vaa reason-
able under the circumstances. T'here Waa no queationing the atarter repair.
d tt~e total labor char e.
111e replacement of other parta wae include in 8
This Court ficids, as a matter of fact, a specific agreement existed, i.e.
to replace the rod and main bearinga and replace the atarter. Such vae
done and the charge reflected by the bill properly. ~,iherefore, it is upon
CUNSIUBRATION, ORDBRBU and ADJUDGBD that the plaintiff do have and
recover of and from the defendant the aum of a105.40 plna the cost of this
action in the amount of $18.50. It is further
ORDBRBD and ADJUDGBD that the counter-claim be and the same is
hereby dismiseed and the counter-claimant go hence without day and take
y` nothing by this cause.
!)pNB Al~1D ORDBRSD in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, this lOth day
of May, A.U., 1974.
. ~
(
~
i .
~lJ~"-'
_
. ` COUNIY JUDGS E
. :'tT- .~~N
' ' . ~ littl7 ~ ~
- - ,i~~ '~~t~ t
:+C '-t.+.
_ ~ ~ ; ~~-i ~ '
~ t, c
`~~~=:Sr~y~~ij~.~ fl;;_ ,
t ~J t ~ s ' ' &~~-s i,:,-
;ir:~~;- ' +~5=._
• ~;~~"a`h .ij~.-iy'-~
~ il Y• a~..
+7:~~~Y , • ~
~ ~ v~ 'i=~~F1 ~ . _ ' j-- .
t .~'^..~;'.~"'_'y..~_~~:~"•f'a,~•
- ~ ~''3%y'..`^~ , i ~i~'~ _ • ~ ~ , ~ -y:
- ~ '-N` ~ ~.i j~s;;t
. _ _ ~a. ~j l\ _
v1 `yi•.~i
3Qn'~ v., -~f~
~ • _
i.,~-:. ;.~0~~;'`~~~~ ••`'•f'~
fJ~`}fl7i.i:111~,`~`~ +
'
. ~ f LED 1~ND RECORDE~ ~
f{. ~UCtE COUMn Fu4 '
RCCEK P417~AS 4
aECOa~ vf~~if
EO COUIIj •
F
~ l5 ~010 ~'Z~
~
~82j1'70
sooK ~27 ~14~3~
- - - - . ~s::s~.~~;.~ -
~ ~ -
~y~ rA~ ~
~
. ~a » . . . . _