TRANSIT-MIX CONCRETE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
v.
JOSEPH B. HILL; TRANSIT-MIX CONCRETE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, V. C. M. DUNHAM (TWO 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.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed lower court judgments in favor of the defendants in two consolidated cases. The court found that the evidence supported the defendants' pleas, which established valid agreements for corporate stockholders to withdraw funds as compensation for services from profits, and that these agreements were ratified and executed through a final settlement.
No, the trial court did not err. The preponderance of the evidence supported the defendants' pleas, establishing a valid agreement for withdrawals and a subsequent ratified settlement.
“It is sufficient to say that on issues clearly presented by the pleadings (the declaration and the third plea [*426] of each of the defendants), the preponderance of the evidence supports the defendants' pleas.”
Establishes the court's finding that the evidence favored the defendants' arguments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTwo consolidated cases involved Transit-Mix Concrete, Inc. suing its stockholders, Joseph B. Hill and C. M. Dunham. The company sought to recover fund…
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.
The above styled causes resulting in judgments in favor of defendants in the court below have been consolidated in one transcript and presented together for consideration here.
We have carefully examined the record and find no reversible error made to appear.
No questions involved here appear to warrant the promulgation of an opinion discussing the contentions of the parties and the reasons for upholding the judgments.
It is sufficient to say that on issues clearly presented by the pleadings (the declaration and the third plea *426of each of the defendants), the preponderance of the evidence supports the defendants’ pleas.
The pleas were sufficient to show a valid agreement for withdrawals of funds (for which defendants were sued) by each of the corporate stockholders, in compensation for services to the corporation, from profits earned; and to show a final settlement based on such agreement whereby the agreement was ratified and executed.
The judgments should be affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Buford and Adams, J. J., concur.