D. A. D., Inc. v. Cali, Inc.

PER CURIAM. The question presented by this appeal is whether the chancellor erred when he found that the forfeiture of the security deposit under the hotel lease involved was a penalty rather than liquidated damages. The decree is affirmed upon authority of Stenor, Inc. v. Lester, Fla.1951, 58 So.2d 673; Kanter v. Safran, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 553; Pappas v. Deringer, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 770. Affirmed.