RODNEY PRICE, APPELLANT,
v.
VOYLE C. JOHNSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1969-04-29
No. 68-562
Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
222 So. 2d 211 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1969) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

A broker is not required to deliver specific stock certificates to a purchaser unless there is an agreement to do so.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellee purchased 100,000 shares of Airlift stock from appellant's father, a broker. The broker conveyed ten stock certificates representing 100,000 …

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The instant appeal is one of several which have reached this court that concern various aspects of an action for a declaratory decree instituted by Airlift International, Inc., against James H. Price, Voyle C. Johnson, and others to determine ownership of 1,704,274 shares of Airlift common stock. It concerns a third party action brought by appellee, Voyle C. Johnson, against appellant, Rodney Price.

Appellee purchased 100,000 shares of Airlift common stock from a broker, appellant’s father. The broker later conveyed ten stock certificates representing 100,000 shares of Airlift common stock to appellant. By his third party complaint appellee sought to have those ten stock certificates declared to be his property. The judgment appealed from, in effect, granted him the relief sought.

A broker is not required to deliver specific stock certificates to a purchaser in the absence of an agreement to the contrary. See 12 Am.Jur.2d, Brokers, §§ 134, 142. (Appellee’s purchase occurred before the Uniform Commercial Code went into effect in Florida. A similar purchase made after January 1, 1967, would be governed by the provisions of § 678.8-107, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) The record does not show that appellee and the broker agreed that the broker would deliver the ten stock certificates in controversy to appellee. And since the record shows the broker is *212able to deliver 100,000 shares of Airlift common stock to appellee, appellee has no present claim against appellant. '

For the foregoing reasons we reverse the judgment appealed from and remand the cause to the trial court with directions that the court amend that judgment by striking from it all provisions which grant appellee relief against appellant or his assigns.

Reversed and remanded with directions.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw