Leithauser v. Harrison, No. 5128

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtSMITH
Citation168 So.2d 95
PartiesBlue Sky L. Rep. P 70,652 Charles H. LEITHAUSER and George H. Leithauser, co-partners doing business as Lighthouse Candy Company, Petitioners, v. John H. HARRISON et al., Respondents.
Decision Date09 October 1964
Docket NumberNo. 5128

Page 95

168 So.2d 95
Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,652
Charles H. LEITHAUSER and George H. Leithauser, co-partners doing business as Lighthouse Candy Company, Petitioners,
v.
John H. HARRISON et al., Respondents.
No. 5128.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 9, 1964.

Page 96

Wm. H. Robbinson, of Akerman, Senterfitt, Eidson, Mesmer & Robbinson, Orlando, for petitioners.

Charles E. Davis, of Fishback, Davis, Dominick & Troutman, Orlando, for respondents John H. Harrison and John H. Harrison & Co., Inc.

Edward K. Goethe, Orlando, for respondent Randolph Y. Matheny.

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The petitioners are plaintiffs in trial court case #53116 which is one of nineteen suits at law against three defendants, who are the respondents here. They seek certiorari to quash an order sustaining an objection to an interrogatory on a claim of privilege. We grant the writ.

By their suit brought under Section 517.21 of the Uniform Sale of Securities Law, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the petitioners seek to recover from the respondents the price of certain corporate securities purchased by them, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees. The complaints allege the purchase of certain corporate bonds from Fischer Electro-Magnetics, Incorporated, the issuing corporation; that the bonds were not registered as required by the act; that the respondents, Harrison, a registered securities dealer, and Matheny, an attorney, were directors of the issuing corporation; and that these respondents personally participated or aided in making the sales to the petitioners.

The petitioners propounded various written interrogatories to the respondents, including one directed to the respondent, Matheny, which requested him to state the substance of any advice pertaining to these bonds which he had given to the respondent, Harrison, while representing Harrison as a lawyer. Matheny duly served and noticed for hearing an objection to this interrogatory based solely on the ground that 'any answer would call for the disclosure of a confidential communication between attorney

Page 97

and client constituting privileged matter * * *.'

Prior to the hearing on this objection Matheny alleged, in answer, among other things, that the entire issue of securities was sold to Harrison, a registered securities dealer, in a transaction which was exempt from the requirements of the act; that he did not participate in any of the sales to the plaintiffs and that he was without knowledge as to whether or not Harrison had sold any of the bonds as agent for the issuing corporation.

At the hearing on Matheny's objection, the petitioners acknowledged that an answer to their interrogatory would disclose a communication between attorney and client. They further acknowledged that they had the burden of producing evidence showing that the communication was outside the scope of the attorney-client relationship before disclosure properly could be required. They sought to sustain this burden by introducing evidence that the communication pertained to the future commission of a fraud or a crime....

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 96 Nbr. 2, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...National Bank v. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Company, Inc., Fla. App. 1966, 189 So. 2d 239; and Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla. App. 1964, 168 So. 2d 95, 97. Brooks did not involve an order denying discovery, but the other three did. Following Brennan, the Fourth District's decisions did not cons......
  • Thoman v. Ashley, No. 4548
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 18, 1964
    ...that a verdict would have to be reversed, and the expense and inconvenience involved. See Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla .App.1964, 168 So.2d 95, Second District opinion filed 9 October The Supreme Court also has reviewed quasi interlocutory orders at law where the petitioners alleged that the......
  • City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, Nos. 78-574
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 11, 1978
    ...which will cause Houghton material injury for which appeal will be inadequate, citing to us our own case of Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Houghton further argues the proposition that a state may not impose substantial economic sanctions on a non-immunized individu......
  • Butterworth v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., No. 96-1310-CIV-T-17-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 2, 1998
    ...See Stottler Stagg and Associates, Inc. v. Argo, 403 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla.App. 5th Dist.1981). See also, Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla.App. 2nd Dist.1964) (stating purpose of uniform sale of securities law is to protect investors from fraud); Nichols v. Yandre, 151 Fla. 87, 9......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Thoman v. Ashley, No. 4548
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 18, 1964
    ...that a verdict would have to be reversed, and the expense and inconvenience involved. See Leithauser v. Harrison, Fla .App.1964, 168 So.2d 95, Second District opinion filed 9 October The Supreme Court also has reviewed quasi interlocutory orders at law where the petitioners alleged that the......
  • City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, Nos. 78-574
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 11, 1978
    ...which will cause Houghton material injury for which appeal will be inadequate, citing to us our own case of Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Houghton further argues the proposition that a state may not impose substantial economic sanctions on a non-immunized individu......
  • Butterworth v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., No. 96-1310-CIV-T-17-B.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • April 2, 1998
    ...See Stottler Stagg and Associates, Inc. v. Argo, 403 So.2d 617, 618 (Fla.App. 5th Dist.1981). See also, Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95, 98 (Fla.App. 2nd Dist.1964) (stating purpose of uniform sale of securities law is to protect investors from fraud); Nichols v. Yandre, 151 Fla. 87, 9......
  • Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gellert, No. 82-2620
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 17, 1983
    ...of truth to Count VI of the counterclaim that he prove the fraudulent payment by Bell to Anania. The case of Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964), upon which the trial court relied, stands not only for the proposition that a communication made for the purpose of committin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT