LITLE BROTHERS FERTILIZER AND PHOSPHATE COMPANY, A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES W. WILMOTT, 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.
Little Brothers Fertilizer and Phosphate Company sued James W. Wilmott to recover money Wilmott allegedly paid on behalf of the corporation for an option on phosphate land. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the lower court judgment, finding the testimony did not establish that Wilmott paid the money at the corporation's request or authority.
The corporation was not liable because the testimony did not warrant a finding that Wilmott paid the money at the corporation's authority or request; rather, the evidence showed he paid the money at the request of Little Brothers, the individual partnership, not the corporation.
“the suit was insituted against the plaintiff in error by defendant in error, and the issue tried before a referee was upon an account for money paid and expend[ed] by the plaintiff for the defendant company at its request.”
Establishes the nature of the claim and the legal question presented to the court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilmott brought suit against Little Brothers Fertilizer and Phosphate Company seeking reimbursement for money he paid for an option on proposed phosph…
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 Plea Of Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause having been reached in its regular order for final adjudication, was referred by the court to its commissioners for examination, who have reported that the judgment should be reversed.
After due consideration of the case upon the abstracts of the. record, submitted without'exception, the court find® that the suit was insituted against the plaintiff in error by defendant in error, and the issue tried before a referee was upon an account for money paid and expend ed by the plaintiff for the' defendant company at its request.
The question in the case is whether the plaintiff in error, defendant in the court below, was. liable to the plaintiff for money paid by him for an option on a proposed purchase of phosphate land. It appears from a writing purporting to be the option, that it was made by and between' J. H. Tatum and Little Brothers, and it also ap pears without contradiction that Little Brothers was a partnership firm composed of Lockhart Little and J. A. Little engaged in buying and selling phosphate land distinct from the defendant corporation.
We will not set out the testimony, but have carefully examined it, and, in our judgement, it does not warrant a finding that the plaintiff below paid money on the option by the authority or at the request of the defendant corporation. Its tendency is to show that plaintiff paid the money at the request of Little Brothers, ior the individual members composing that firm, but fails to show liability on part of the defendant corporation.
There was no error in the refusal of the referee to allow the defendant below to withdraw the plea of the general issue and to interpose a plea of privilege to be used in another county than that in which the suit was, instituted. We call attention, however, to one of the additional pleas filed by defendant. It appears that defendant by leave of the referee filed a plea of the statute of limitations and no issue was j pined upon it. As the judgment must be reversed on another ground, we do not determine whether the failure to join issue on the plea would be reversible error under the circumstánces of the case. In the event of another trial the parties can take some action in reference to framing an issue upon the plea.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.