KARL BOYEFF, APPELLANT,
v.
JEAN ERNEST SAVARD, ADJUTOR SAVARD AND R. N. TRUDEAU, CO-PARTNERS AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SAVARD & HART, APPELLEES
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 appellate court affirmed a jury verdict for defendant brokers, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove a custom of dealing that would estop the brokers from demanding margin coverage for a stock sale.
No, the trial court did not err. The tendered proof was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for the claimed estoppel, and therefore, its exclusion was not harmful error.
“The principal contention here is that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit tendered proof that the defendant brokers had established a custom of dealing with the plaintiff whereby defendants did not require prompt payment of deficiencies of margin.”
This quote states the main argument on appeal regarding the exclusion of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued his stockbrokers, alleging they improperly forced him to cover a stock sale order for shares he did not own. The plaintiff claimed …
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 Breach Of Agency Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
The plaintiff sued the partners of a brokerage firm. This firm had acted as his agent in a stock transaction. He charged that the brokers had improperly forced him to cover an order to sell a certain amount of stock which he did not own. He now appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict for the defendants.
The principal contention here is that the trial judge erred in refusing to admit tendered proof that the defendant brokers had established a custom of dealing with the plaintiff whereby defendants did not require prompt payment of deficiencies of margin. Without passing upon the legal sufficiency of the claim for preferential treatment, we hold that the tender fell far short of proving a prior course of conduct. Inasmuch as the tendered testimony would not have established a prima facie case for the claimed estoppel, it cannot now be said to have been harmful error to refuse the tender. See Hopkins v. McClure, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 656; Rance v. Hutchinson, 131 Fla. 460, 179 So. 777.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rance v. Hutchinson, 131 Fla. 460 (Fla. 1938)
- Hopkins v. McClure, 45 So.2d 656 (Fla. 1950)