PETER C. MCCABE, APPELLANT,
v.
GEORGE L. HOWARD AND DORIS E. HOWARD, 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.
A real estate broker sued for his commission after introducing a property buyer and negotiating initial terms, but the ultimate purchase was made by the buyer's president in his individual capacity rather than through the corporation. The court reversed a directed verdict, holding that agency between the corporation and its president was a jury question.
The trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on the grounds that Road Course, Inc. did not purchase the property. The existence of agency between a corporation and its president, combined with a common purpose and the apparent application of corporate funds to an officer's purchase, presents a jury question that should not be decided as a matter of law.
[1] The existence of an agency may be established by circumstantial evidence, and its determination is a question for the jury.
[2] A jury may infer the existence of an agency relationship even when both the alleged principal and agent deny its existence.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The jury is entitled to infer the existence of an agency on the part of an alleged principal and agent even where both deny the existence of such an agency.”
Establishes that agency can be inferred by a jury as a factual matter despite party denials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Howards owned a large real estate tract near Dade City and hired McCabe, a real estate broker, to find a buyer at a set net price. McCabe showed t…
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 Fiduciary Relationship cases and more on FLexlaw
The Howards, owners of a large tract of real estate near Dade City, entered a verbal agreement with Peter McCabe, a real estate broker, allowing him to secure a purchaser for their property at a certain net price to them. Subsequently McCabe showed the property to representatives of Road Course, Inc., a Florida corporation. They were shown the property both by air and on the ground. Negotiations ensued for a time between Road Course, Inc. and the Howards, McCabe acting as the intermediary. No definite agreement was reached, however, at this particular time.
Soon thereafter Road Course, Inc. and the Howards entered into a lease agreement with option to purchase, the terms of which were largely the result of efforts of another broker, a Mr. King. Upon learning of this agreement McCabe contacted Mr. Irwin, then president of Road Course, Inc., and demanded a commission. Over a period of months Road Course, Inc. paid the Howards a total of $21,000 which would have been applied to the purchase price had the corporation exercised its option to purchase. Nevertheless, the corporation failed to acquire the anticipated financing for the purchase and was unable to exercise the option, at least not in its own name.
The property was thereafter purchased from the Howards by Hubert Kleinpeter, president of Road Course, Inc., in his own name. The evidence indicates that the $21,000 paid by the corporation in lease and option money was actually applied to the purchase price of the property for Kleinpeter’s benefit.
We note in passing that the agreement between Road Course, Inc. and the How-ards stipulated that the Howards would be indemnified and held harmless by reason of any action which might be brought against them by Peter McCabe or Louise Anderson, a broker cooperating with Mc-Cabe.
Upon the foregoing facts the trial judge granted a motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Appellant asserts, and we agree, that it was error for the trial court to decide as a matter of law either that the prospective purchaser, Road Course, Inc., was unable to purchase the property or, more importantly, that Road Course, Inc. did not in fact purchase the property through the agency of Hubert Kleinpeter, president of Road Course, Inc. Although the burden of proof would be on the party asserting the agency, i. e., Peter McCabe, we believe that the facts in this case as presented in the plaintiff’s case are sufficient to entitle McCabe to a determination of the issues by a jury. The jury is entitled to infer the existence of an agency on the part of an alleged principal and agent even where both deny the existence of such an agency. Watkins v. Sims, 81 Fla. 730, 88 So. 764 (1921). The existence of an agency may be shown by any substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial and the fact of an agency is a jury question. Financial Fire & Cas. Co. v. Southmost Vegetable Co-op. Assoc., 212 So.2d 69, (3d D.C.A.1968); Smith v. Texas Co., 111 Fla. 762, 149 So. 585 (1933).
The mere existence of a fiduciary relationship between a corporation and its president, although very important, would not in and of itself be sufficient to pose a question of the fact of an agency for a jury. However, this, in addition to a common purpose or design as well as the ap*364parent application of corporate funds to a purchase by one of its officers, seem to us to warrant a submission of this case to the jury.
We therefore reverse and remand for a complete jury trial.
MANN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. Robbins, 433 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1983)…rmined by a jury in accordance with the evidence adduced at trial, Scott v. Sun Bank of Volusia County, 408 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Cleveland Compania Maritima, S.A. Panama v. Logothetis, 378 So. 2d 1336 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); McCabe v. Howard, 281 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and can be proved by facts and circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 354 So. 2d 985 (Fla.1977). As it did before the district court, HJ now claims that R…
-
Theresa Singer Ad Litem for Ann Doe v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…contract between News and Milne, is not dispositive of that issue. Nazworth v. Swire Florida, Inc., 486 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). A jury may infer the existence of an agency even when both the principal and the agent deny it. McCabe v. Howard, 281 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973). “The standard for determining whether an agent is an independent contractor is the degree of control exercised by the employer or owner over the agent.” Nazworth, 486 So. 2d at 638. “[I]f the one securing the services controls t…
-
Hernandez v. Motrico, Inc., 370 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…as to the proof of facts from which an ultimate fact is sought to be established, or where there is room for such differences as to the inferences that might be drawn from conceded facts, the matter should be submitted to the jury. McCabe v. Howard, 281 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) and Ranger v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 336 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The trial court should not infer certain facts, as a matter of law, unless they are certain and incontrovertible. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Webb, 1…
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
- Watkins v. Sims, 81 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1921)
- Hernandez v. State, 212 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Cap. Fin. Corp. v. Giles, 111 Fla. 527 (Fla. 1933)
- Smith v. Tex. Co., 111 Fla. 762 (Fla. 1933)