MELODY TIRE CO.
v.
JULIEN ZIMMERMAN
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.
Melody Tire Company appealed a judgment on a promissory note signed by its president. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a note executed by a corporate president in the ordinary course of business and within the scope of apparent authority is enforceable against the corporation without additional proof of specific corporate authorization.
A promissory note executed in the name of a corporation by its president, for its benefit, and within the scope of authority the president is accustomed to exercise or apparently has exercised with the corporation's consent, will be held to be the corporation's obligation and is enforceable in suit against the corporation. The facts in this case were sufficient to warrant recovery.
“A promissory note executed in the name of a corporation by its president, for its' benefit, and one for which the corporation has power to authorize the president to execute or to ratify after it has been made, or, if executed by the corporation's president in the ordinary course of business, and within the scope of authority the president is' accustomed to exercise, or apparently has exercised with the consent of the corporation, will be held to be the corporation's obligation and is enforceable as such in a suit against the corporation”
The controlling legal rule establishing when a corporate promissory note is enforceable without additional proof of authorization
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Julien Zimmerman obtained a judgment against Melody Tire Company on a promissory note for $1,400.00. The note was signed "Melody Tire Compan…
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 Ratification Of Corporate Acts cases and more on FLexlaw
Judgment was recovered on a promissory note for $1400.00 against Melody Tire Company, a corporation. The note was signed “Melody Tire Company, W. N. Melody, President.” Plaintiff testified that he saw Mr. Melody sign the note, but the contention of plaintiff in error is that this is insufficient to establish liability in the absence of further porof that there was a corporate indebtedness or that the note when signed, was so signed for a corporate purpose, with corporate authority. The trial was had on a single plea of non est factum. The defendant below did not introduce any evidence and the court directed verdict for the plaintiff after having denied a motion for a directed verdict for defendant. Defendant, below has sued out this writ of error.
A promissory note executed in the name of a corporation by its president, for its' benefit, and one for which the corporation has power to authorize the president to execute or to ratify after it has been made, or, if executed by the corporation’s president in the ordinary course of business, and within the scope of authority the president is' accus*66tomed to exercise, or apparently has exercised with the consent of the corporation, will be held to be the corporation’s obligation and is enforceable as such in a suit against the corporation on proof of facts bringing the case within the foregoing rule. Cotton States Belting & Supply Co. v. Florida R. Co., 69 Fla. 52, 67 Sou. Rep. 568.
In our opinion the facts in this case adduced at the trial were sufficient to warrant a recovery by plaintiff under the rule just stated, so the judgment is affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Sinclair v. Baucom, 428 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1983)…lien to be imposed, there must first be a contract between the attorney and the client. Billingham v. Thiele, 107 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958), cert. dismissed, 109 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1959). The contract may be express, Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 So. 242 (1933), or implied, Greenfield Villages; Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721 (1933). The record before this Court bears witness that an express contract existed between petitioner and Ruby Baucom. Both made explicit references to that contra…
-
Daniel Mones, P.A. v. Smith, 486 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1986)…383, 17 So. 2d 691 (1944), receded from to extent of inconsistency, Billingham v. Thiele, 109 So. 2d 763 (Fla.1959); Knabb v. Mabry, 137 Fla. 530, 188 So. 586 (1939); Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721 (1933); Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 So. 242 (1933). The majority opinion makes brief reference to the fact that the lawyer asserts a claim to a forty percent contingent fee to be taken from the recovery obtained in the lien foreclosure action. The respondents deny the existence of any contra…
-
Lenore Miller and Wallace Ruff v. Scobie, 152 Fla. 328 (Fla. 1943)…en a litigant contracts with an attorney to litigate a cause and pay him a percentage of the recovery for his fee, he is entitled to a lien on the judgment therefor. Famish Carter v. W. G. M. Davis, et al., 8 Fla. 183; Alyea v. Hampton, 112 Fla. 61, 150 So. 242; Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637, 152 So. 721; Knabb v. Mabry, 137 Fla. 530, 188 So. 586. The Federal Courts have also approved this rule. Chancy v. Bauer, et al., 97 Fed. (2nd) 293. The means by which such liens may be enforced has never been adjud…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cotton States Belting & Supply Co. v. Fla. Ry. Co., 69 Fla. 52 (Fla. 1915)