WILLIAM BOTHAMLY AND A. M. BOTHAMLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
J. H. QUEAL, APPELLEE
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.
Bothamly and his wife appealed a decree finding that the wife held title to cypress lands in trust for Queal, who had exclusively employed Bothamly to locate cypress lands. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's finding that Bothamly, acting as Queal's agent, had breached his fiduciary duty by concealing and purchasing desirable lands for his wife instead of his principal.
The court affirmed the decree holding that Bothamly's wife holds the title to the lands in trust for Queal. The court found sufficient evidence of breach of the agent's duty of good faith, concealment, and suspicious circumstances to support the lower court's factual findings, which are not overturned on appeal.
“the good faith required of agents toward their principals, the length of time between the supposed location and the attempt to get the State's deed for lands known by Bothamly to be readily saleable for many times the purchase price, his concealment and absence of candor in failing to disclose the owner's name when the lands were finally shown to Queal, the paying for the property with his own money and having the deed made out to his wife”
The court's enumeration of the suspicious circumstances and breaches of fiduciary duty that supported affirming the chancellor's decree
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQueal exclusively employed Bothamly to locate cypress lands. During this employment, Bothamly personally negotiated the purchase of certain cypress la…
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 Principal-Agent Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is a bill by Queal against Bothamly and wife, setting up the exclusive employment of Bothamly to locate cypress lands for the complainant, the purchase during the employment by Bothamly in the name of his wife of certain cypress lands from the State and praying that the wife be declared to hold the title to these lands in trust for Queal. The separate answers of Bothamly and wife aver in effect that the lands were purchased with the wife’s money and were located by her through another agent while Bothamly was under his employment locating lands for Queal in another part of the State. Testimony was taken and there was decree for the complainant.
The evidence having disclosed that Bothamly personally conducted the negotiations for the purchase of the lands from the State, sending his own check in payment, and directing first that the deeds be made to one William Laws and then changing to Mrs. Bothamly and that her alleged agent was employed by Queal through Bothamly, the defense shifted and contradicts the answer, it being then claimed that the location occurred several weeks prior to the inception of the employment.
No attempt is made to explain the discrepancy between the defense as pleaded and its abandonment and the change of front as presented in the evidence and we are impressed with the thought that it was caused only by the exigencies of the case. The good faith required of agents toward their principals, the length of time between the supposed location and the attempt to get the State’s deed for lands known by Bothamly to be readily saleable for many times the purchase price, his concealment and absence of candor in failing to disclose the owner’s name when the lands were finally shown to Queal, the paying for the property with his own money and having the deed made out to his wife, even though there be evidence that he was in her debt, and other suspicious circumstances in the record, forbid our upsetting the finding of the Chancellor upon the facts.
The act of the clerk in entering judgment for costs pro forma jointly against husband and wife, when directed specifically by the court to enter the judgment against the husband alone is a mere misprision correcting itself and will not cause reversal.
The decree is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur. Taylor, Hooker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Tea Fulton and J. T. Taylor v. Clewiston Ltd. & Clewiston Co., Inc., 100 Fla. 257 (Fla. 1930)…ill not be given the same effect as a verdict of a jury, his conclusions solely on the facts will not be reversed unless it clearly appears that he has erred in such conclusions. See Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. R. 97; Bothamly v. Queal, 58 Fla. 396, 50 So. R. 415; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 So. R. 642; Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. R. 238; Barnes & Jessup Co. v. Williams, 64 Fla. 190, 60 So. R. 787; Farrell v. Forest Inv. Co., 73 Fla. 191, 74 So. R. 216. As to the rang…
-
Helland v. Evans, 113 Fla. 839 (Fla. 1934)…he evidence shows clearly that such finding and conclusions are erroneous. See Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 South. Rep. 97; Fuller v. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236, 2 South. Rep. 426; Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 South. Rep. 439; Bothamly v. Queal, 58 Fla. 396, 50 South. Rep. 415; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 South. Rep. 501; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 South. Rep. 642; Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 South. Rep. 238; Dixon Lumber Co. v. Jennings, 63 Fla. 405, 57 South. Rep. 615; Ter…
-
Fisher v. Grady, 131 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1937)…ot be disturbed unless the evidence shows clearly that such finding and conclusions are erroneous. See Waterman v. Higgins, 28 Fla. 660, 10 So. 97; Fuller v. Fuller, 23 Fla. 236, 2 So. 426; Lewter v. Price, 25 Fla. 574, 6 So. 439; Bothamly v. Queal, 58 Fla. 396, 50 So. 415; Viser v. Willard, 60 Fla. 395, 53 So. 501; Theisen v. Whiddon, 60 Fla. 372, 53 So. 642; Bank of Jasper v. Tuten, 62 Fla. 423, 57 So. 238; Dixon Lumber Co. v. Jennings, 63 Fla. 405, 57 So. 615; Terra Ceia Estates v. Taylor, 68 Fla. 261,…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence