A. R. HARPER PIANO COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. A. CUMBIE, 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 reversed a judgment for the defendant in a replevin action, holding that the defendant should have known the agent lacked authority to barter the piano.
No, the defendant did not have a duty to ascertain the extent of the agent's authority to barter, and the evidence does not sustain the judgment for the defendant.
“The circumstances made it encumbent upon the defendant to ascertain if the agent was authorized to barter as well as to sell; and in bartering with the agent under the circumstances he was charged with the duly to ascertain the extent of the agency.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, emphasizing the defendant's duty to verify the agent's authority.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, A. R. Harper Piano Company, brought a replevin action to recover a piano. The defendant had traded an automobile to the plaintiff's age…
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 Agency Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, J.
In an action of replevin to recover a piano or its value there was judgment by a referee for the defendant and the plaintiff took writ of error. The evidence discloses that the defendant traded an automobile to an agent of the plaintiff for the piano. The defendant knew the agent was acting as agent only. It is clear that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the agent was authorized to sell and not to barter pianos. The circumstances made it encumbent upon the defendant to ascertain if the agent was authorized to barter as well as to sell; and in bartering with the agent under the circumstances he was charged with the duly to ascertain the extent of the agency. Under the law the evidence does not sustain the finding and judgment in favor of the defendant.
Judgment reversed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Cockrell and Hock-er, J. J., concur.