On Petition for Rehearing

On petition for rehearing appellants’ appellate counsel, who incidentally were not their trial counsel, insist that we overlooked the proposition that the errors asserted on appeal were so fundamental that they justified consideration even though the questions involved were not presented to the trial judge.

We did not overlook this point. This is a civil case in which the trial judge had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter. He had the power to act in the premises.

In order to justify consideration by this court on appeal, appellants who were plaintiffs below should have first raised the questions in the trial court. Mariani v. Schle-man, Fla. 1957, 94 So.2d 829.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

TERRELL, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.

We have thoroughly examined the briefs, appendices and original record. There are numerous procedural errors which, if properly brought to the attention of the trial judge or raised in this court, might justify a reversal. Our consideration of the record, however, convinces us that' in the ultimate result the trial judge ruled correctly. Under the circumstances reflected by this record the procedural errors are either harmless or were waived in the trial court. Therefore, the judgment under assault is

Affirmed.