THE ORANGE BELT RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
MARY A. COX, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JAMES A COX, DECEASED, 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 Orange Belt Railway Company sued for writ of error to reverse a judgment rendered by a referee in favor of James A. Cox's estate for alleged compensation owed for services in securing a land donation. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in permitting testimony about an agent's representations to establish agency, which must be proven through proper legal means.
The judgment was reversed and a new trial granted. The court held that the trial court committed error in permitting Cox to testify to representations made by Sweetapple to establish agency, as agency cannot be proven in this manner.
“This was error, as agency can not be so proven.”
Establishes the core holding that agency cannot be proven through an alleged agent's representations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames A. Cox claimed the Orange Belt Railway Company owed him compensation for work and services rendered in securing a donation of land by one Willia…
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 Quantum Meruit cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
This cause being reached in its regular order for final' adjudication, was referred by the court to -its comniis-sioners for investigation, who report that the judgment: of the Circuit Court ought to be reversed.
James A. Cox, the intestate of defendant in error,.sued the plaihtiff in error upon a single count alleging-“for that whereas one day of Jan’y. A. D. 1887, in cpnsid: eration that the plaintiff at the request of the defendant-had before that time done and bestowed certain work and services in and about the business of the defendant, and" for it the defendant promised the plaintiff to pay him on- request so "much money as he therefore reasonably deserved to have, and the plaintiff avers that he then and there reasonably deserved to have therefor the sum of,” etc., filing therewith as a bill of particulars the following :
“Orlando, Florida, June 24th, 1889.
By eommisions on donations of Williams property at St. Petersburg, $20,000.”
The defendant filed two pleas, the first that it never was indebted, and the second that it did not promise as alleged. The case was tried before a referee who, after taking testimony, rendered a judgment for the defendant in error who, upon the death of the original plaintiff, had become as his administratrix, a party to the suit. From this judgment the defendant sued out writ of error to this court.
' The plaintiff’s claim was for compensation for services in securing a donation of land by one Williams to the defendant company.. He based his claim upon an alleged agreement entered into by him with .one Sweetapple'as agent of the company. The authority of the alleged agent was denied by the company, and the plaintiff was permitted over.the objection of defendant, in establishing such agency, to testify to representations made by Sweet-apple that he was such agent. This was error, as agency can not be so proven. Mechem on Agency, Sec. 100; 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 690; Lakeside Press & Photo-Engraving Co. v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523, 22 South. Rep. 878.
The other questions involved are not decided.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. Societe Anonyme la Floridienne, 53 Fla. 801 (Fla. 1907)…to the testimony of Mr. Smith contained in the interrogatories and answer, but no ruling thereon is given in the record. It is plain, however, that agency cannot be proved by the mere declaration of a supposed agent. Orange Belt Railroad Co. v. Cox, 44 Fla. 645; Lakeside Press, etc., v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523; 16 Cyc. 1005-6; Francis v. Edwards, 77 N. C. 271; Grandy v. Ferebee, 68 N. C. 356; Royal v. Sprinkle, 1 Jones’ Law (N. C.) 505. It seems to us the complainants have signally failed to show clearly and…
-
Ngoc T. Phan v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for First Franklin Mortg. Loan Tr. 2006-FF11, 198 So. 3d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
-
Foye Tie & Timber Co. v. Jackson, 86 Fla. 97 (Fla. 1923)…to contract with Jackson and Lynn for future delivery but that declaration of the agent was not enough to establish his authority, besides the power, if obtained, seems not to have been as broad as the alleged contract. See Orange Belt R. Co. v. Cox 44 Fla. 645, 33 South. Rep. 403; 10 Enc. of Evidence 18. The evidence offered by defendant to establish the .fact that after entering into the alleged contract to sell all the ties manufactured the plaintiffs sold to other persons part of their output should h…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lakeside Press & Photo-Engraving Co. v. Campbell, 39 Fla. 523 (Fla. 1897)