FLORIDA CIGAR AND TOBACCO COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BAKER & HOLMES COMPANY, A CORPORATION, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court decree rescinding a stock purchase contract between Baker & Holmes Company and Florida Cigar and Tobacco Company. The Court held that even if fraud existed in the corporation's financial statements, Baker & Holmes had waived any equitable remedy by continuing to participate as a stockholder for months after discovering the fraud.
The Court held that rescission was not warranted. The equitable claim was weakened by the purchaser's failure to conduct independent investigation and the peculiar nature of the business arrangement. Any remaining equity was eliminated by estoppel when Baker & Holmes continued participating in stockholder benefits for approximately four months after discovering the fraud, only seeking rescission after the corporation had liquidated.
“Any equity that might ordinarily arise from a knowingly false statement of a corporation's financial standing as an inducement to a purchase of stock, is not only weakened by the lack of any reason why in this case an independent investigation of the corporation's books might not have been first made by the intending purchaser, but also by the peculiar nature of the business in which the corporation was engaged.”
Establishes that fraud claims for stock purchases are weakened when the purchaser could have investigated independently and when the business nature affects the significance of financial statements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaker & Holmes purchased stock in Florida Cigar and Tobacco Company in spring 1906, relying on the company's financial statements. The corporation was…
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 Independent Investigation cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.-
— The Baker & Holmes Company obtained a decree rescinding a contract, whereby it purchased stock in the Florida Cigar and Tobacco Company,. and awarding a return of the consideration paid therefor or its equivalent in money at-the agreed value of $5,340.00, with interest from January 29th, 1907, when the return was demanded. The theory of the bill is that there was fraud in the financial statement of the condition of the Tobacco Company, and also certain representations made by that company’s agent, upon the truth of which the Baker & Holmes Company relied in making the purchase of stock. We may lay aside the representations in as much as they were considered “guess work.”
Any equity that might ordinarily arise from a knowingly false statement of a corporation’s financial standing as an inducement to a purchase of stock, is not only weakened by the lack of any reason why in this case an independent investigation of the corporation’s books might not have been first made by the intending purchaser, but also by the peculiar nature of the business in which the corporation was engaged. It was not organized primarily to yield dividends directly to its stockholders, but was more in the nature of a combination whereby various wholesale dealers in Jacksonville in the cigar and tobacco business organized a stock company to purchase supplies in large quantities, from which its members, relieving themselves from carrying such supplies, could obtain immediately and from time to time, as orders came in, the stock from the common source; that there was an advantage in the way of discount in purchasing in larger quantities of which discount the complainant received the benefits. It further appears that whereas before joining the corporation, the complainant itself carried a thirty thousand dollar stock of these commodities, from which load the corporation gave relief, thus releasing say twenty-five thousand dollars to be used in other lines of activity.
It will thus be seen how attenuated the equity became, and we find it completely blotted out by a later estoppel. The shares of stock were purchased in the spring of 1906; in October following,, the purchaser heard rumors that the corporation contemplated liquidating, and on the 16th of that month wrote that it had made the purchase on the strength of this statement (that is the financial statement referred to above), and being desirous of cooperating with the tobacco industry in this city, but having ascertained that-the statement was not correct, requested a return of the amount paid for the stock with interest. Yet after the knowledge was admittedly brought home to the purchaser that the statement upon which it relied was incorrect, it continued participating in the rights belonging only to stockholders — That of securing, its supplies from the common source at a discount — to the value of about four thousand dollars, and not until January 29th, 1907, as found in the decree, and after the corporation had gone into liquidation did it finally repudiate its contract.
We are of the opinion that whatever of equity may have existed in October, 1906, when the supposed fraud was actually discovered, it had ceased to exist when the final demand was made.
The decree is reversed with directions to dismiss the bill.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317 (Fla. 1921)…ntiffs’ statements could be [*325] stated as fraudulent representations. See Allen v. United Zinc Co., 64 Fla. 171, 60 South. Rep. 182; Riverside Inv. Co. v. Gibson, 67 Fla. 130, 64 South. Rep. 439; Florida Cigar & Tobacco Co. v. Baker & Holmes Co., 62 Fla. 487, 57 South. Rep. 174; Huffstetler v. Our Home Life Ins. Co., 67 Fla. 324, 65 South. Rep. 1. Even if the averred misrepresentation as to the market value constitutes a defense the plea was defective in that it fails to aver what the market price of th…