RICHARD B. MARX, APPELLANT,
v.
THEODORE GOLDFINGER, 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.
A licensed stock broker borrowed 4,200 shares of stock from a customer with an alleged promise to return them within ten days. When the shares were not returned and the brokerage firm failed, the customer sued for conversion. The trial court found for the customer and awarded damages; the appellate court affirmed, finding substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's findings.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the findings and the trial court's decision was not clearly erroneous.
“As you are aware, I borrowed 4200 shares of the L. F. Popell Company, Inc., Common Stock, from you last week with the understanding that it would be returned shortly.”
Marx's own letter acknowledging the loan of shares, which corroborates Goldfinger's claim of conversion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichard B. Marx, a licensed stock broker and owner of R. B. Marx & Co., Inc., contacted his customer Theodore Goldfinger and requested a loan of 4,200…
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 Conversion Of Stock cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by Richard B. Marx, the defendant below, from a final judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, Theodore Goldfinger.
The defendant, a licensed stock broker, was the owner of a brokerage firm which did business as R. B. Marx & Co., Inc. A large amount of stock in the L. F. Popell Company, Inc. had been purchased by the defendant’s brokerage firm. The plaintiff was a customer of the defendant’s firm and also a substantial investor in the stock of L. F. Popell Company, Inc.
Due to financial problems resulting from a decrease in the value of the Popell stock, the defendant, Richard B. Marx, contacted' the plaintiff and requested a loan of a number of shares of Popell stock. The-shares of stock were allegedly to be used as-security for a bank loan. The plaintiff delivered 4200 shares of Popell stock to the office of the defendant and received a receipt for the stock signed by the bookkeeper of the defendant’s firm.
While there was a conflict as to the date agreed upon for the return of the stock, the *381plaintiff wrote on the receipt for the stock that it was to be returned within ten days. The plaintiff made several demands for the return of the stock, but it was not delivered as promised. Thereafter, on July 16, 1963, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff, in which he stated: “As you are aware, I borrowed 4200 shares of the L. F. Popell Company, Inc., Common Stock, from you last week with the understanding that it would be returned shortly.”, and explained the situation, indicating that the shares could not be returned as promised.
Shortly thereafter, the brokerage firm operated by the defendant failed, and was placed into receivership. All the assets of the firm were taken over by a federal receiver. When his stock was not returned, the plaintiff filed the instant action, seeking damages from the defendant for the conversion of the stock certificates. After hearing the evidence, the trial court, sitting without a jury, rendered final judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $21,779.79, including interest. It is from this final judgment that the defendant appeals.
The defendant on appeal contends, in essence, that the record does not contain substantial competent evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court.
The evidence in this case was disputed on practically all of the issues involved therein. These issues were resolved in favor of the plaintiff by the trial judge, whose duty it was to reconcile conflicts and evaluate testimony, to judge credibility of witnesses, and determine the reasonableness and weight of the evidence presented. In re Lohbiller’s Estate, Fla.App. 1959, 113 So.2d 248.
These findings of the trial court then come to this court clothed with the presumption that they are correct, Winchester v. Florida Electric Supply, Inc., Fla.App. 1964, 161 So.2d 668, and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. Goldstein v. Stone, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 227. The appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is clearly erroneous. Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 550.
The defendant has failed to demonstrate that this decision is clearly erroneous, and we find that there was substantial competent evidence to sustain the findings of the trial court.
The decision of the trial court is therefore
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Carmine Marrone v. Miami Nat'l Bank, 507 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…intiff’s mortgage participation certificate. In a non-jury case, it is the trial court’s duty to reconcile conflicts in the testimony, to judge the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight of the evidence presented. Marx v. Goldfinger, 187 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). This court will not disturb the trial court’s findings, which are presumed correct, unless they are totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence. Randy Int'l, Ltd. v. American Excess Corp., 501 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DC…
-
Biscayne Mfg. Corp. v. Sandav Corp., 323 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…afforded a jury verdict. Also, appellant states it has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is clearly erroneous in order to obtain a reversal. We agree with both of these statements of principles of law. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 380; Paul’s Drugs, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 203; and Dade County v. Pepper, Fla.App.1964, 168 So. 2d 198. However, after a consideration of the record, all points in the briefs and arguments of counsel i…
-
Storer v. Storer, 305 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…te court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and should not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous; and that the appealing party has the burden of demonstrating that the decision is clearly erroneous. Marx v. Goldfinger, Fla.App.1966, 187 So. 2d 380; Mitchell v. Morse Operations, Inc., Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 248. After careful review of the record on appeal, we find there was substantial evidence to support the chancellor’s findings of fact. We next look to the conclusions of law which the c…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winchester v. Fla. Elec. Supply, Inc., 161 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Al Goldstein v. Stone, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Vandercar v. David, 96 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- In re Est. of Iolia R. Lohbiller v. Miami Beach First Nat'l Bank, 113 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Koren Kreedian v. BCK Land, Inc., 145 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)