Branford State Bank v. Howell Co.

• Decision Date: 18 December 1924
• Parties: BRANFORD STATE BANK v. HOWELL CO.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

102 So. 649

88 Fla. 493

BRANFORD STATE BANK v. HOWELL CO.

Florida Supreme Court

December 18, 1924

En Banc.

Error to Circuit Court, Suwannee County; M. F. Horne, Judge.

Action by the Branford State Bank against the Howell Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Restrictions on directing verdict stated. The judge should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained, nor should a motion for directed verdict be granted where the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue. Under our jurisprudence the matter of directing a verdict as authorized by section 2696, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, is a delicate one and should be cautiously exercised.

Ratification of unauthorized act of agent must be with full knowledge of all material facts. The ratification of the act of an agent previously unauthorized must, in order to bind the principal be with full knowledge of all the material facts. If the material facts be either suppressed or unknown, the ratification is invalid, because founded on mistake or fraud.

Action by principal required to disavow unauthorized acts of agent stated. When the principal is informed of what has been done he must dissent, restore all the fruits of the transaction and give notice in reasonable time, or otherwise his assent to what has been done shall be presumed.

COUNSEL

J. B. Johnson, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

C. C. Howell, of Jacksonvile, and P. B. Howell, of Mayo, for defendant in error.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Both parties hereto are Florida corporations. Branford State Bank sued the Howell Company to recover the amount of three notes specifically set out in the declaration, which also included the common counts. The case went to trial on the general issue and denial of the notes and execution thereof on the part of defendant.

At the conclusion of all the testimony a motion for directed verdict on the part of defendant was granted. This court has frequently held that the judge should never direct a verdict for one party unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the other party can be sustained, nor should a motion for directed verdict be granted where the evidence is conflicting or will admit of different reasonable inferences, or if there is evidence tending to prove the issue. Under our jurisprudence the matter of directing a verdict as authorized by section 2696 Revised General Statutes of Florida, is a delicate one, and should be cautiously exercised. Johnson v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 59 Fla. 305, 52 So. 195; Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Hayes, 66 Fla. 589, 64 So. 274; German-American Lumber Co. v. Brock, 55 Fla. 577, 46 So. 740.

We have examined the record in this case carefully, and the evidence supporting and contradicting the issues on which the case must turn is conflicting in the extreme. In awarding the motion for an instructed verdict under such circumstances the court usurps the function of the jury, and his action in so doing is reversible error.

The notes sued on in this case were executed by an agent of defendant to take up overdrafts that were made in the usual course of business. Defendant contends that these notes were executed by its agent, contrary...