Gordon Intern. Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Title Co.
| Citation | 170 So.2d 59 |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-259,64-259 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Parties | GORDON INTERNATIONAL ADVERTISING, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CHARLOTTE COUNTY LAND & TITLE CO., a Florida corporation, Green Manor Construction Co., Inc., a Connecticut corporation, and Lansing Development Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Appellees. |
Ephraim Collins, Miami Beach, and Samuel Sheradsky, Miami, for appellant.
Julius I. Friedman, Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
Appellant-plaintiff instituted this action against three corporate defendants, Charlotte County Land & Title Co., Green Manor Construction Co. and Lansing Development Corp., seeking to recover on an account stated for advertising services performed for the defendants.
The action was stayed as to the defendant, Charlotte County Land & Title Co., due to its involvement in bankruptcy proceedings. The suit against the other two defendants proceeded to trial, and at the end of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict for these two defendants.
The plaintiff appeals claiming error was committed by the trial court in directing the defendants' verdict.
It is apparent from the record that the trial judge directed his verdict on the theory that appellees were not directly responsible for the payment of this debt because the Charlotte County Land & Title Co. was the corporation that contracted the debt and Green Manor Construction Co. and Lansing Development acted as sureties, in that, they were collaterally responsible and only bound in the event the primary debtor failed to pay.
In view of the fact that these were collateral promises to answer for the debt of another, the Statute of Frauds required that they be in writing. 1 The court directed a verdict on the uncontested fact that the collateral promises in this case were oral . The court erred in permitting the defendants to raise the affimative defense of the Statute of Frauds because they did not plead this defense in their answer to the complaint. 2 The failure to plead an affirmative defense, waives the defendants' right to raise it as a defense to the action. 3 However, the result reached by the trial court was correct, even though his reason for reaching this correct result was erroneous, and we will affirm his ruling. 4 This result obtains because the plaintiff's evidence failed to show the authority of the person with whom appellant dealt.
The record reveals that all of the plaintiff's transactions, in regard to this debt, were carried on with a Mr. Rubin, an employee of Charlotte County Land & Title Co. The directed verdict must be affirmed because the appellant failed to establish by what authority Mr. Rubin bound the appellees, in the face of the specific denial of Mr. Rubin's authority, in the answer. It is evident that he had authority to act for the Charlotte County Land & Title Co., but nowhere does it appear that he had authority to act for the other corporate defendants. 5 The trial court, therefore, correctly directed a verdict for the defendants
The appellant has also raised as error several items of cost awarded to the defendant. Inasmuch as we affirm the defendants' directed verdict, they are entitled to costs, but we can not agree with one of the items the lower court allowed.
Appellant initially contends that the trial court erred in allowing $211.06 as the cost of producing a witness for the purpose of taking his deposition. Appellant further asserts that it was error to allow $188.00 as a witness expense for Mr. Ellis, the principal corporate officer of the defendant-Green Manor Construction Co. and $246.45 for reporting the deposition of Harry Gordon, President of the appellant corporation.
Costs, as a compensatory monetary award to the winning party, is a judicial attempt to make the winning party as whole as he was prior to the litigation. 6 The theory being that previling party should not lose anything, at least financially, by virtue of having established the righteousness of his claim. 7 It is similarly axiomatic that the litigation at a duty to keep the cost of the litigation at a reasonable figure, 8 and the determination of reasonableness is left to the discretion of the trial court. 9
In regard to the allowance of expenses for a witness' deposition and the deposition of the plaintiff's president, the appellant has failed to demonstrate in what manner the trial court abused his discretion. Failing this demonstration, the trial court's allowance of expenses will not be disturbed. 10
The trial court erred, however, in charging to appellant the expense of the principal officer of Green Manor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A.J. Tenwood Associates v. Orange Senior Citizens Housing Co.
...of prevailing corporate defendant court assigned him the role of a party to the litigation); Gordon Internat'l Adv. v. Charlotte County L. & T. Co., 170 So.2d 59, 61 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1964) (Costs denied where officer who testified for prevailing corporation was corporation's principal offic......
-
Republic Nat. Bank v. Araujo
...995, 997 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); De Guido v. De Guido, 308 So.2d 609, 611 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Gordon Int'l Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Title Co., 170 So.2d 59, 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). We next find no error with the trial court's refusal to give one of Republic's requested jury ......
-
Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v. Hanratty
...v. DeBelay, Fla.App.1970, 231 So.2d 233; Sorensen v. Eshelman, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 597; Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Title Co., Fla.App.1964, 170 So.2d 59; Fink v. Powsner, Fla.App.1958, 108 So.2d 324. Since the affirmative defense was not asserted i......
-
City of Boca Raton v. Boca Villas Corp.
...allowed appellees to recover their costs which he assessed in the amount of $83,304.70. In Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land & Title Co., 170 So.2d 59 (Fla.3rd DCA 1964), the court characterized costs as "Costs, as a compensatory monetary award to the winning p......
-
A practitioner's guide to the taxation of costs in civil actions.
...Properties, 464 So. 2d 234,235 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1985). (2) Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land and Title Co., 170 So. 2d 59, 61 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (3) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Richardson, 343 So. 2d 678, 679 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977); Deleuw Cather & Co. v. Grog......