RALPH BAIRD AND BEULAH BAIRD, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
DANIEL CLIFFE JOHNSON, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1970-05-20
No. 69-317
McCAIN, J., and STEWART, JAMES R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
235 So. 2d 538 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1970) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this conversion case, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that Beulah Baird could not be liable for the loss of $5,000 in currency that her husband Ralph allegedly converted. Once Mrs. Baird delivered the money to her husband as instructed, her bailment relationship terminated and she became a stranger to any subsequent bailor-bailee relationship.


Holding

The court held that Beulah Baird was not liable for conversion. Once she delivered the $5,000 to her husband as instructed, her duties as a gratuitous bailee terminated and she had no further custody or control. Mrs. Baird was a stranger to any bailor-bailee relationship between Johnson and Ralph Baird, and her status as his wife did not alter this legal relationship.


Headnotes

[1] A gratuitous bailee's duties terminate upon fulfilling the bailor's expressed instructions.

[2] A spouse is not automatically liable for the conversion of funds held by their co-habiting spouse, absent independent involvement in the bailment or conversion.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“When Mrs. Baird delivered the $5,000 to her husband for him to place in his safe, which delivery was made pursuant to the expressed instructions of the plaintiff, Mrs. Baird's duties as bailee terminated.”

Establishes that the gratuitous bailment relationship ended when Mrs. Baird completed her instructed task of delivering the money to her husband.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In 1963, Daniel Johnson left $5,000 in currency with Mrs. Beulah Baird to be placed in her husband Ralph Baird's safe for safekeeping. Mrs. Baird deli…

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
OWEN, Judge.

OWEN, Judge.

Appellants are husband and wife and were. defendants in an action brought by appellee for defendants’ alleged conversion of $5,000 in currency which appellee left with appellants for safekeeping. A jury verdict against both defendants resulted in the judgment from which this appeal has been taken.

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Baird became acquainted in 1959 and thereafter became friends. Mr. Baird had a safe in his home for his personal use. In 1963 Mr. Johnson brought $5,000 in currency to the Bairds’ home to be placed in Ralph Baird’s safe for safekeeping. Mr. Baird was not at home at the time, so Mr. Johnson left the $5,000 in currency with Mrs. Baird to be delivered to her husband upon his return later in the day. Mr. Baird received the money from his wife and placed it in his safe, and there was no evidence to establish that at any time thereafter Mrs. Baird ever again had any custody or control of these funds. Mr. Baird testified that within a few months Mr. Johnson asked for and received a return of the $5,000 and that later Mr. Johnson also left certain gold mining stock and another $5,000 in cash for safekeeping, all of which were subsequently returned to him. Mr. Johnson testified that although he discussed the funds with Mr. Baird on numerous occasions, and at one time even offered to permit Mr. Baird to use the funds for his own purposes should he so desire, the $5,000 deposit left with Mrs. Baird in 1963 was never returned. Mr. Johnson admitted that from the time he left the $5,000 in currency with Mrs. Baird, up to and including the time of the trial, he had never again discussed the matter of the funds with Mrs. Baird, nor was there any agreement with her other than that the money would be put in Mr. Baird’s safe.

Among the errors assigned by appellants was the denial of their respective motions for directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence. We believe it was error to deny such motion as to the defendant Beulah Baird. Viewing the evidence and all inferences reasonably to be drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Mrs. Baird was a gratuitous bailee of the $5,000 in currency which Mr. Johnson left in her custody. When Mrs. Baird delivered the $5,000 to her husband for him to place in his safe, which delivery was made pursuant to the expressed instructions of the plaintiff, Mrs. Baird’s duties as bailee terminated. 8 C.J.S. Bailments § 1. Mrs. Baird did not at any time thereafter have either custody or control of the funds. Although the jury could lawfully have found that Mr. Baird as bailee had been guilty of con*540version by his failure to redeliver the funds to appellee upon demand, Mrs. Baird was a stranger to any bailor-bailee relationship existing between Mr. Johnson and Mr. Baird and her status as such was not altered merely because she was the wife of the bailee.

The remaining points raised by appellants are without merit and do not require discussion.

The final judgment in this case is modified so as to grant the plaintiff Daniel Cliffe Johnson, recovery of and from the defendant Ralph Baird, solely, and to deny recovery against the defendant Beulah Baird, who shall go hence without day with her costs. As thus modified the final judgment is affirmed.

McCAIN, J., and STEWART, JAMES R., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mariette (LeGault) Schryburt v. Olesen, 475 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
    …e is not liable for her husband’s tort when she has no knowledge of his tortious conduct and does not authorize or participate in the act. See Tout v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 390 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and Baird v. Johnson, [*717] 235 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Consequently, the trial court erred in entering judgment against Mariette. The fact that she joined in the sale by signing the deed, standing alone, is insufficient to support the judgment. The judgment is therefore vacated as t…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw