D. A. D., Inc. v. Cali, Inc. (148 So. 2d 731, 1963)

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.