Cooper v. Fulton
| Decision Date | 06 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 58-645,58-645 |
| Citation | 107 So.2d 798 |
| Parties | R. K. COOPER and R. K. Cooper, Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. Alan D. FULTON, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles J. Crowder and George J. Baya, Miami, for appellants.
Hill, Welsh, Cornell, Ross & Pyszka, Miami, for appellee.
By an interlocutory appeal, the appellants R. K. Cooper and R. K. Cooper, Inc., who were the defendants below, challenge the correctness of an order for discovery.
The order appealed from was entered in a suit brought by the appellee Alan D. Fulton for the dissolution of a partnership which Fulton alleged was entered into between himself and appellants through an oral contract in 1952. It was alleged that the partnership business consisted of an insurance agency operated by and through R. K. Cooper, Inc., and that appellants had terminated the partnership on October 6, 1958, and excluded plaintiff from the business.
On the day after the suit was filed, a hearing was had on plaintiff's application for injuction. As a result of that hearing the court made an order which enjoined the parties in certain respects designed to preserve the subject matter pendente lite, and ordered discovery by requiring the defendants R. K. Cooper and R. K. Cooper, Inc., to produce for inspection the company's records of insurance policies, that portion of the order being as follows:
'(6) 'All of the books and records, data and memoranda having to do and affecting the insurance phase of your operation (referring to the defendants' operation) will be exhibited to Mr. Fulton, save and except that part of your records referred to as expiration dates of the several policies.'
'(7) By way of clarification of the order contained in paragraph (6) immediately above, the Court means to direct, and does so order and direct that in the use of the word 'exhibit', the Court intends and so orders that the books, records, data and memoranda be exhibited to the plaintiff, or his agents, servants or employees, for the purpose and to the extent necessary to permit a take-off or copying of all such data, records and book entries, save and except only the expiration dates of the several policies involved.
'(8) The Court holds and so orders that the defendants furnish to the plaintiff the names of all insurance companies, as also the names of the respective insureds, in each and every policy in force as of October 6, 1958.
'(10) The defendants, and each of them, their agents servants and employees, are hereby ordered and directed to conform to and abide by the several provisions of this Order forthwith to the end that there shall be no delay or interference in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiff procuring the information hereinabove ordered and directed to be made available to him.'
This court, on review of the chancellor's denial of a motion of appellants to supersede or stay the order, granted supersedeas of the parts of the order relating to such discovery, being paragraphs numbered 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the order quoted hereinabove.
Rule 1.28 of 1954 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 F.S.A., entitled 'Discovery and Production of Documents and Things for Inspection, Copying or Photographing,' provides for the production or furnishing of documents for inspection 'Upon motion of any paryt showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, and subject to the provisions of Rule 1.24(b)'. The rule referred to (1.24(b)) relates to 'Orders for the Protection of Parties and Deponents', under which 'upon motion seasonably made' the court may dispense with, limit or control the discovery process as the necessities and justice of the parties and the matter involved may require.
Here the order was made on the occasion of an injunction application held the day after the suit was filed, and there was no prior motion for discovery or opportunity for a noticed motion for protection. However, the views of the parties respecting the discovery, as they might have been presented to the court on such motions after specific notice, appear to have been raised and argued at the hearing which was held.
The determinative question is whether the court erred in granting discovery of matters relevant to an accounting prior to a determination on the merits of the issues upon which a right to such an accounting would depend. 1
The appellants contend that the discovery order was premature and not necessary, and that giving Fulton knowledge of their customers, policies and expiration dates 2 would cause appellants irreparable injury if appellants prevailed on the main issues.
In suits for accounting, the procedure calls first for the establishment of the right or basis for the accounting, with the actual accounting following in accordance with that earlier determination. Manning v. Clark, Fla.1951, 56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551; Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46. See Hollywood Beach Hotel & Golf Club v. Gilliland, 140 Fla. 24, 191 So. 30.
In Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, supra, the Supreme Court of Florida, speaking through Mr. Justice Hobson, held that discovery as to accounting was premature and improperly ordered in advance of a decision establishing the right to accounting. In that case the court said (88 So.2d at pages 554, 555):
'Since there is no claim of privilege, the only point remaining to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. Walker, 70--822
...56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551; Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798. Our decision, therefore, is limited to holding that the third amended complaint for accounting was sufficient to withstand the......
-
Horowitz v. Raskin
...record and, therefore the judgments are affirmed. See: Ballas v. Lake Weir Light & Water Co., 100 Fla. 913, 130 So. 421; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798; Hattaway v. Florida Power & Light Company, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 101; Maryland Casualty Company v. Krasnek, Fla.1965, 174......
-
Dyson v. Dyson
...56 So.2d 521; Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551, Gladman v. Hallam, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 46; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798. Id., 334. (emphasis See: Section 620.665, Fla.Stat. (1979). We find that appellant's sixth amended complaint states a cause of......
-
A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, A--1
...following in accordance with the earlier determination. See Charles Sales Corp. v. Rovenger, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 551; Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1959, 107 So.2d 798. In addition a suit for an accounting is an equitable proceeding in which the court retains jurisdiction until the final determi......
-
Business & commercial cases
...of documents related to the accounting itself. Wood v. Brackett , 266 So.2d 398, 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). See also Cooper v. Fulton , 107 So.2d 798, 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959). There are several connected cases at 117 So.2d 33, 132 So.2d 616, and 158 So.2d 759. 5. Right to an Accounting: It may......