DAVID SAUL KLAFTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
PEOPLES BANK OF CLEARWATER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's judgment for the defendant bank, finding no error in the trial proceedings. The plaintiff had sued the bank for allegedly mismanaging funds intended for a land purchase.
The court found no reversible error in the trial court's decisions regarding the demurrer, evidence, directed verdict, or new trial, and therefore affirmed the judgment.
“Klafter, the plaintiff, sent Peoples Bank of Clearwater, the Defendant, Ten Thousand Dollars to be paid W. T. Harrison as cash or binder payment on certain lands purchased by Klafter from Harrison.”
Establishes the core factual background of the dispute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Klafter, sent $10,000 to Peoples Bank of Clearwater to be paid to W.T. Harrison as a binder payment for land. Klafter's instructions st…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Escrow Account cases and more on FLexlaw
Klafter, the plaintiff, sent Peoples Bank of Clearwater, the Defendant, Ten Thousand Dollars to be paid W. T. Harrison as cash or binder payment on certain lands purchased by Klafter from Harrison. The order of transmittal carried the following instructions: “Hold subject to satisfactory contract. Quarter cash, balance down payment sixty days balance one, two, three, foiir years at six per cent.”
Kraffer contending that the Ten Thousand Dollars was paid to Harrison contrary to these instructions brought a common law action for recovery laying his damages in the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars. A trial resulted in a verdict and final judgment for the defendant, to which writ of error was taken.
Assignment's of error are predicated on the order sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the amended declaration, overruling objection to evidence prof erred by defendant, the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict and the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The record has been examined and each assignment considered. An opinion covering in detail the questions raised would be lengthly and would serve no useful purpose as they have been decided in former adjudications of this court. We find ample support for the verdict and judgment below which is accordingly affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Buford, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.