GEORGE SCHROEDER
v.
MOSES L. ANNENBERG
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.
Schroeder sought compensation for allegedly assisting Annenberg in the purchase of The Philadelphia Inquirer for a 5% fee, but the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove he performed the essential elements of the alleged contract.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the plaintiff's case. While the evidence supported some elements of plaintiff's allegations, it failed to establish that plaintiff furnished the gross and net earnings of the paper or conducted negotiations with the owner regarding the sale, and there was no satisfactory evidence that the defendant actually relied on plaintiff's efforts in making the purchase.
“The plaintiff's case is based on performance of the entire contract. The proof must be likewise or he cannot avail.”
Establishes the legal principle that a plaintiff must prove performance of all essential elements of the alleged contract, not just some elements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSchroeder alleged he was employed by Annenberg to assist in purchasing The Philadelphia Inquirer and was to receive 5% of the purchase price. Schroede…
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 Contract Performance cases and more on FLexlaw
This case comes here on writ of error to review a final judgment directed by the court for the defendant.
The plaintiff alleges he was employed to assist defendant in the purchase of The Philadelphia Inquirer; that he undertook the employment and was to receive compensation from defendant in an amount equal to 5% of the purchase price; that plaintiff obtained the circulation, financial set up, gross and net income, purchase price and the names of the persons from whom the purchase could be made. That all of this information was given to defendant whereupon the purchase was made and payment to plaintiff was re*515fused. Pleas were filed; evidence was submitted and a verdict was directed for the defendant.
The only question is whether the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict for plaintiff.
We enter upon the consideration of this case with a presumption in favor of the judgment of the lower court. The burden is with him, who asserts error in the judgment to make it appear. If there is doubt in our mind as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient, we resolve the doubt in favor of the action of the lower court. The legal sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law for the trial judge subject to appropriate review by the appellate court. Stevens, et al. v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512, 88 So. 303; Smith, Richardson & Conroy, 82 Fla. 79, 89 So. 352; Kenny v. Langston, et al., 133 Fla. 6, 182 So. 430.
While there is substantial testimony to support some elements of the plaintiff’s case, we find it insufficient on others. The plaintiff’s case is based on performance of the entire contract. The proof must be likewise or he cannot avail. Stephens Lumber Co. v. Cates, 62 Fla. 382, 56 So. 298. The evidence is insufficient to prove that plaintiff furnished the gross and net earnings of the paper or that plaintiff conducted negotiations with the owner or any authorized person relative to the sale of the paper. Conceding that defendant purchased the paper yet there is no satisfactory evdience that defendant availed himself of plaintiff’s efforts.
It is earnestly insisted that defendant prevented plaintiff from fulfilling his contract. Such is not the case made by the declaration. The plaintiff made his case as stated above. He could recover on no other *516regardless how meritorious. John Wilkinson v. P. & A. R. R. Co., 35 Fla. 82, 17 So. 71.
From the entire record we are convinced that the evidence was insufficient to prove the case made. The meager performance could have been of no material assistance in making the purchase. Kenny v. Langston, 133 Fla. 6, 182 So. 430.
The judgment is affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Natural Gas & Appliance Co. v. Marion Cnty., 58 So.2d 701 (Fla. 1952)…he verdict. It was reviewed by the trial judge and he refused to set the verdict aside and grant a new trial. The presumption here is that the judgment of the lower court is correct. Ball v. Ball, 160 Fla. 601, 36 So. 2d 172; Schroeder v. Annenberg, 148 Fla. 513, 4 So. 2d 866; LaBarbara v. State, 150 Fla. 675, 8 So. 2d 662; Usher Garage & Taxi Service v. Zander, Fla., 40 So. 2d 575, 576. The appellant also assigns as error the refusal of the lower court to permit testimony by an insurance agent concerning…
Authorities Cited
- Persis Stevens v. Tampa Elec. Co., 81 Fla. 512 (Fla. 1921)
- Wilkinson v. Pensacola & Atl. R.R. Co., 35 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1895)
- Smith v. Tampa Elec. Co., 82 Fla. 79 (Fla. 1921)
- Stephens Lumber Co. v. Cates, 62 Fla. 382 (Fla. 1911)
- Thos F. Kenney v. Langston, 133 Fla. 6 (Fla. 1938)