Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 62-541
| Decision Date | 16 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 62-541,62-541 |
| Citation | 151 So.2d 879 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ethel KLEIN, Appellant, v. NEWBURGER, LOEB & CO., a limited partnership, Appellee. |
Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellant.
Miller & Podell, Miami Beach, for apppellee.
Before HORTON, BARKDULL and HENDRY, JJ.
The appellee is a stockbroker and the appellant is one of its former customers. On November 20, 1958, the appellant closed her account and the appellee sent her a final statement and a check for the amount of money remaining in the account. On May 7, 1959, an Ethel Klein of Elizabeth, New Jersey, the same name but not the same person as the appellant, placed a purchase order with the appellee for 100 shares of stock of Lorel Electronics, Inc. The appellee acquired this stock for $2,077.50. Due to the similarity in names, the appellee's employees inadvertently mailed a certificate representing the 100 shares of stock to the appellant at her residence in Miami Beach, Florida. The appellant kept the stock certificate assuming it had been sent to her in further settlement of her account. On August 3, 1959, the appellant sold the 100 shares of stock represented by the certificate through a brokerage house in Miami for the sum of $2,318.58. On or about June 7, 1960, the appellee discovered its mistake and directed a letter to the appellant requesting that she return the stock certificate. When no reply was received, the appellee went into the open market and purchased 100 shares of Lorel Electronics for its customer in New Jersey at a cost of $5,800. Subsequently, on February 12, 1962, the appellee brought this suit for conversion. After hearing, the trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellee for $5,800, together with interest from May 30, 1959, the date on which the appellant received the stock, to the date of the judgment, and costs. This appeal is from the summary judgment.
The appellant contends (1) that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because it disclosed on its face that the appellant came into possession of the stock certificate through mistake or inadvertence and could not, therefore, be guilty of conversion; and (2) that the court applied the wrong rule of law as to damages and interest in an action for conversion by assessing damages as of the date of the purchase of the new stock certificate by the appellee, and in allowing interest on that amount from May 30, 1959.
We find the first contention to be without merit. However, we agree with the second contention and hold that the trial court applied the wrong rule of damages.
The appellee contends that since this case concerns a conversion of corporate stock, the trial court properly applied the majority or 'New York rule' of damages. The general rule as to damages in a conversion case is that they are to be measured by the value of the converted property at the time and place of conversion. 7 Fla.Jur., Conversion, § 23, p. 284. The New York rule, which is an exception to the general rule, provides that in cases involving the conversion of corporate stock, damages are to be assessed upon the basis of the highest market price attained within a reasonable time after the owner has had notice of conversion. See 161 A.L.R. 317, 321, and cases cited therein; see also 53 Am.Jur., Trover & Conversion, § 129. The appellee asserts that Florida's adherence to the New York rule is evidenced by the case of Scott v. National City Bank of Tampa, 107 Fla. 818, 139 So. 370, 142 So. 650, 143 So. 444 146 So. 573, and the discussion found in 7 Fla.Jur., Conversion, § 23, at p. 285. We have examined these authorities and are unable to glean therefrom any support for the proposition that Florida has adopted or even approved the New York rule. The Scott case involved the alleged conversion of stock pledged as collateral for a bank loan. Of the above cited opinions, only those found at 142 So. 650 and 146 So. 573 contain references by the Supreme Court of Florida to the rule of damages for the alleged conversion of corporate stock. In 142 So. 650, the court simply referred to the lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
89 Hawai'i 91, Roxas v. Marcos
...time after learning of the conversion[,] disregarding the period between conversion and learning thereof. Klein v. Newburger Loeb & Co., 151 So.2d 879 (Fla.App.1963) (stock conversion);[ 43] Schug v. Michael, 310 Minn. 22, 245 N.W.2d 587 (1976) (stock conversion); Hoffman v. Dorner, 86 A.D.......
-
Small Business Admin. v. Echevarria
...(liability for conversion does not require proof of knowledge or intent to deprive another of their property); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So.2d 879 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963) (party who came into possession of stock certificates through mistake or inadvertence guilty of conversion desp......
-
Brougham v. Swarva, s. 8807-6-
...reasonable time after learning of the conversion disregarding the period between conversion and learning thereof. Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So.2d 879 (Fla.App.1963) (stock conversion); Schug v. Michael, 310 Minn. 22, 245 N.W.2d 587 (1976) (stock conversion); Hoffman v. Dorner, 86 ......
-
Corbin's Estate, In re
...(Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied 179 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1965), after remand to trial court 196 So.2d 242 (Fla.3d DCA 1967); Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., 151 So.2d 879 (Fla.3d DCA), after remand 153 So.2d 344 (Fla.3d DCA Although argument might well be made that lost profits and other special dama......