Armstead Brown

This case was a replevin action in which plaintiff Galen M. Rowsey sought to recover possession of a 1946 Ford automobile from defendant Roy C. Inman in Florida circuit court. The trial court entered judgment for Rowsey, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment consistent with its opinion. The facts showed that Rowsey sold the car in California to a buyer who paid with a worthless check and then quickly resold it through a chain of transactions that resulted in a valid Florida certificate of title being issued to Inman; Rowsey had failed to record his conditional sales contract, notify motor vehicle authorities, or otherwise perfect or protect his interest. The court held that Florida law protecting holders of certificates of title obtained through innocent purchasers controls, and applied the principle that when two innocent parties suffer loss due to a third party's fraud, the loss falls on the party whose conduct enabled the wrong.

property

This case concerned the estate of Angie C. Slawson, who died in December 1945, and whether her surviving husband John T. Slawson had validly renounced or gifted his distributive share of her personal property estate to her son Preston K. Sheldon before John's death eleven days later. The administratrix of John's estate petitioned for distribution of that share to John's heirs, but the county court and circuit court ruled in favor of Sheldon based on letters and a memorandum indicating John's possible intent to relinquish the interest. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that John's statements expressed only a future intention to sign a legal document and did not constitute an actual renunciation, assignment, or completed gift of his vested interest, so the share remained part of John's estate.

family lawproperty

This case involved a petition for a writ of prohibition filed by Florida Beverage Department officials to stop a county judge in Walton County from hearing motions to quash search warrants and ordering the return of seized intoxicating liquors. The warrants had been issued and returned by a circuit judge after searches in a dry county uncovered liquor held for sale. The circuit court denied the prohibition petition, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed that judgment on appeal. The court reasoned that the county judge's court lacked jurisdiction because the warrants were returned to the circuit court, making it the proper forum under Florida Statutes sections 933.04 and 933.14, and the motions failed to meet statutory requirements for claimants seeking return of the liquor. The cause was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this holding.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Myrtle Priestley against the administrator of her deceased ex-husband Charles J. Priestley's estate, seeking payment for goods she had provided to him and for rent on her half-interest in property they had owned as tenants by the entireties before their 1944 divorce converted it to a tenancy in common. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff on both counts after a bench trial. The appellate court affirmed the rent award, finding sufficient evidence of an oral agreement for $50 monthly rent plus back payments, but reversed the goods award and remanded for a new trial. The reversal rested on the lack of any claim or accounting by the plaintiff during the deceased's lifetime, combined with a presumption against validity arising from the delay in asserting the claim and the possibility that the goods were a gift.

family lawpropertyprocedure

Travis Maddox was convicted in the Circuit Court of Madison County of larceny of three hogs claimed by Hughey Blanton and sentenced to two years in prison. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The evidence indicated that Maddox took the hogs openly while asserting ownership, that both men honestly believed the animals belonged to them, and that the jury recommended suspending the sentence, reflecting doubt about guilt. Prior cases hold that larceny requires a felonious intent to steal, which is not present when the taking is consistent with an honest claim of right even if mistaken.

criminal law

The case involved real estate broker Joseph Norwood suing non-resident sellers of the Broadripple Hotel in Miami Beach for an unpaid commission of about $17,000, which he claimed was earned by procuring buyer Harry Simberg under an agreement for five percent of the sale price. Norwood sought equitable garnishment of escrow funds held by a bank, but the trial court, adopting a master's findings, dismissed the bill on the merits after finding Norwood had not consummated a sale on terms satisfactory to the sellers and lacked equity for the remedy. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, concluding from the evidence that Norwood's efforts directly led to the sale at $325,000 net to the sellers, establishing their liability for the commission despite the buyer's indemnity agreement.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved real estate brokers who sued to recover a commission on the sale of property owned by Robertson to purchaser Phillips. The concurring opinion agrees that the brokers' contract was solely with the seller Robertson, with no agreement that the commission would come from sale proceeds or that Phillips would pay it. Full payment was made in cash to Robertson, making him liable for the $10,000 commission rather than Phillips. The opinion finds a cited precedent inapplicable and declines to address any potential fraud or conspiracy claim by the brokers against Phillips.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a wrongful death action brought by a widow against Stanford Fruit Growers, Inc., seeking damages for negligence that caused her husband's death. The trial judge instructed the jury that all recoverable damages must be based on the probable joint lives of the widow and husband. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Its reasoning relied on precedent allowing juries to estimate life expectancy from a witness's appearance and noted that the motion for a new trial did not claim the verdict was excessive.

torts & liability

This case involved appeals by the City of Tallahassee from jury verdicts awarding damages to Mrs. Louise Ashmore and her husband for injuries and losses from a collision between the city's truck and Mrs. Ashmore's car at the intersection of Copeland and Carolina Streets. The city challenged the trial court's jury instructions on right-of-way under a city ordinance, negligence, and the duty to avoid collisions, as well as the amount of damages awarded to Mrs. Ashmore based on mortality tables. The court held that the instructions were proper under Florida precedent treating ordinance violations as prima facie evidence of negligence that can be rebutted by surrounding circumstances, and that the verdicts were supported by the evidence. It affirmed the husband's judgment in full and affirmed the wife's judgment only if she accepted a $435 remittitur to correct a minor discrepancy in life-expectancy calculations; otherwise, a new trial would be required.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a state Act brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the state. The lower court ruled that the Act was not shown to be unconstitutional. In a special concurrence, Justice Brown agreed with that holding on the merits while also indicating that the Attorney General likely possessed the authority to file the suit.

procedure

This case involved a quo warranto action by relator Hawthorne challenging respondent Wiseheart's title to a Dade County Circuit Judgeship, on the ground that Wiseheart, while serving as a state senator, was appointed to fill a vacancy in an office whose emoluments had been increased by the 1943 legislature in violation of Section 5, Article III of the Florida Constitution. The court denied the petition for rehearing and upheld the validity of Wiseheart's appointment and continued tenure. The core reasoning was that the only relevant salary-increase statute did not become law until after Wiseheart's appointment and Senate confirmation in June 1943, that the constitutional prohibition applies only to increases completed before appointment or election, and that Wiseheart therefore held good title to the office both during the remainder of his legislative term and after it expired following the 1944 election.

electionsprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two sisters, Nell Weed and Jesse W. Knox, over real property they held as remaindermen following a 1943 deed from their father, Walter A. Weed, who retained a life estate. The plaintiff sought a court-ordered partition of the property, either by division or sale, but the defendant moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of equity, non-joinder of the life tenant, and insufficient title or statutory basis for the action. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that under Florida law, including Sec. 66.03 F.S.A., remaindermen lack the right of present possession required for partition actions among cotenants, and no statute authorized such suits by remaindermen while a life estate remained outstanding in a third party.

property

This case involved a dispute over an alleged oral agreement for the sale of all capital stock in the Brandt Corporation for $300,000, with the buyer seeking specific performance after the sellers refused a tendered down payment. The trial court denied the sellers' motion to dismiss the complaint, but the Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari and quashed that order. The court held that the statute of frauds required a sufficient written memorandum signed by the parties to be charged, and the draft contract prepared by the sellers' agent did not qualify because it was unsigned by the defendants and explicitly noted as a non-final suggestion. Without a compliant writing, no enforceable contract existed, so the bill for specific performance could not proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the estates of Harrison J. Stewart and Ada Cone Stewart, who died in a 1931 car accident with the husband predeceasing the wife by an hour; each had willed their property to the other. After the wife's estate was found to have no living relatives of her own, a 1932 chancery decree directed that her assets pass to the husband's heirs under Florida statute. Years later, the plaintiffs, claiming to be blood relatives of Ada Cone Stewart, sued to recover those assets, but the trial court dismissed their claim in part due to an alleged champertous fee agreement with their attorneys. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that any champertous contract between plaintiffs and counsel did not impair the underlying right to assert an inheritance claim, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of any proven heirs of Ada Cone Stewart.

family lawproperty

This case involved a workers' compensation claim under Florida law by an employee who suffered a workplace injury resulting in the permanent loss of sight in one eye, after 17 weeks of temporary total disability. The Florida Industrial Commission awarded the employee an additional 20 weeks of compensation beyond the statutory 100 weeks for the eye injury, relying on a prior precedent interpreting subsection (u) of the compensation statute. The Circuit Court set aside the award and remanded the matter, holding that subsection (u) permits up to 20 additional weeks of compensation only as needed based on case-specific circumstances, not as an automatic extension, and that the stipulated facts were insufficient to determine the appropriate amount. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment, adopting its interpretation of the statute as allowing discretionary additional compensation within the 20-week limit to address factors like recovery time or impact on earning capacity.

labor & employment

The case concerned the enforceability of an agreement providing large compensation contingent on obtaining favorable action from a federal board in Washington. The court held the agreement invalid and unenforceable. The concurring opinion agreed with that result due to the size of the payments and their success-based condition. It noted that ordinary employment of representatives to present legitimate arguments before federal boards remains lawful when done to protect legitimate interests.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case concerned the City of Miami's effort to issue $1,300,000 in stadium revenue bonds to expand the Miami Field Stadium by adding seating and to retire prior obligations, all payable exclusively from stadium revenues. The State challenged the bonds on grounds that they required approval by a majority of freeholder electors under the Florida Constitution and that a private sale was unauthorized. The court affirmed the circuit court's validation decree, holding that the bonds did not constitute a debt or pledge of the city's credit or taxing power, that special laws of 1939 authorized the improvements and private sale, and that prior precedent permitted issuance of revenue bonds for municipal facility extensions without an election when payable solely from project revenues.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a defendant convicted after receiving over $4000 more than entitled from a bank teller, with the question of whether he knowingly accepted the mistaken overpayment. The concurring opinion addressed the trial court's refusal to set aside the jury verdict against the defendant. The justice noted uncertainty from the specific moment of the transaction but concluded that the overall evidence presented a factual issue for the jury to resolve. The jury resolved that issue against the defendant, so the trial judge committed no error in upholding the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In Crandon v. Hazlett, a Dade County probation officer and taxpayer challenged the constitutionality of Chapter 23053, Acts of 1945, which authorized county commissioners in populous counties with juvenile courts to appoint a new five-member County Board of Visitors, abolished existing boards appointed by juvenile court judges under the statewide framework of Chapter 416, Florida Statutes 1941, and transferred related powers to the commissioners. The trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for decree on the bill and answer, declaring the act unconstitutional and enjoining its implementation. On appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute was in substance a local law lacking any rational basis for its population-based classification, enacted without the notice or referendum required by sections 20 and 21 of Article III of the Florida Constitution. The court reasoned that the management of children's detention homes was part of a uniform statewide child-welfare program and that no justification existed for denying juvenile court judges in larger counties the appointment authority granted in smaller counties.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

This case arose from a fatal 1941 car crash in Coral Gables, Florida, in which Andrew Crawford drove his Mercury Coupe into a tree at high speed, killing himself and his three passengers, including Gardner Orme and James Burch. Their widows sued Crawford's estate, alleging that the deaths resulted from his wanton, reckless, or grossly negligent driving in violation of Florida's guest statute. After a consolidated trial on the same evidence, juries returned verdicts for the defendant administrator, and the trial court entered judgment accordingly. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that excessive speed on a residential street at night, without evidence of braking, intent to injure, or other aggravating circumstances, did not constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct as a matter of law. The court noted that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was unavailable and that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the driver had not acted with the required degree of culpability.

torts & liability