JOE REINERTSON, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
L. B. NELSON AND T. W. WARD, A CO-PARTNERSHIP, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS AS WARD PAVING COMPANY, 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 court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of apparent authority and that the jury instruction did not constitute reversible error.
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, appealed a final judgment based on a jury verdict. The appeal raised issues regarding apparent authority …
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 Apparent Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was defendant in the trial court and it appeals a final judgment upon a jury verdict. Two points are presented:
(1) Whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a finding of apparent authority of defendant’s alleged agent.
(2) Whether the court improperly charged the jury when it returned the first time with a blank verdict.
On the first point we think that the evidence is sufficient upon the question of agency in that the jury could have found that the agent was clothed with apparent authority to modify the contract because of his position as the sole contact between plaintiff and defendant. See Tampa Sand & Material Co. v. Davis, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 126.
The second point does not present reversible error because defendant did not properly object to the instruction of which *724he now complains. Nelson v. Cravero Constructors, Inc., Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 764; Marsh v. Sarasota County, Fla.App.1957, 97 So.2d 312.
A question as to the propriety of the amount of the verdict was orally argued, but inasmuch as this assignment is not argued in the brief, it must be deemed abandoned. Rule 3.7 (i), Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A.; Simon v. Simon, Fla. App.1960, 123 So.2d 41.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharpsteen v. Keesler, 178 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…s were made in accordance with.Rule.2.6, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. and, therefore, it appears that the final judgment rendered on the jury verdict should be affirmed on the authority of Joe Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 723; Karl v. David Ritter Sportservice, Inc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So. 2d 23; Henningsen v. Smith, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 85. Affirmed.…
-
JIM Walter Corp. v. Andrew John Bracht et ux., 239 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…in reaching our decision.1 Appellants having failed to demonstrate error, the judgment appealed is affirmed. JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur. . Nasrallah v. Corley (Fla.App.1965) 180 So. 2d 476; Joe Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson (Fla.App.1964) 160 So. 2d 723; Central Bank & Trust Co. v. Banner Trading Co. (Fla.App.1963) 157 So. 2d 201.…
-
Fin. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Coop. Ass'n, 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…questions to be determined by the jury or by the trier of facts in accordance with the evidence adduced in the particular case. American Can Company v. Horlamus Corporation, 5th Cir. 1965, 341 F. 2d 730; Joe Reinertson, Inc. v. Nelson, Fla.App.1964, 160 So. 2d 723; One Hour Valet of America, Inc. v. Keck, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 83; 3 C.J.S. Agency § 330b(1), (2). We are of the opinion that the order of the lower court denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment comports substantially with the establishe…
Authorities Cited
- Marsh v. Sarasota Cnty., 97 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Nelson v. Cravero Constructors, Inc., 117 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Tampa Sand & Material Co. v. Davis, 125 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Simon v. Simon, 123 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)