Maiborne v. Kuntz
| Decision Date | 08 February 1952 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 720 |
| Parties | MAIBORNE v. KUNTZ. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Edgar G. Hamilton and Irwin L. Langbein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Williamson, Gunster & Baugher, Palm Beach, and Earnest, Lewis, Smith & Jones, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This suit grew out of a dispute between two elderly men, Harry C. Maiborne and Charles Kuntz, Sr. Mr. Maiborne was a retired manufacturer of electrical appliances and Mr. Kuntz, Sr. was a retired manufacturer of hats. Kuntz stated that he had sold his business for a quarter of a million dollars and retired. They were residents of Palm Beach. Kuntz had a son by the name of Charles Kuntz, Jr. All the parties were neighbors. A small boat was owned by either Charles Kuntz, Sr. or Charles Kuntz, Jr. The evidence was conflicting.
The actual ownership of the boat is not material because under the testimony, Maiborne was fully justified in believing that the boat was owned by Kuntz, Jr., or that Kuntz, Jr. had full authority to sell the boat and fix the price. Kuntz, Jr. authorized Maiborne to sell the boat for $35, with the agreement that he would have all over that amount which he might receive. After Maiborne sold the boat, Kuntz, Sr. found out about it and asserted that the boat belonged to him and finally demanded $40 for the boat. After bitter disputes between these two elderly men, Maiborne offered to pay the additional $5 but Kuntz, Sr. refused it, saying that he wanted his boat back.
Kuntz, Sr. Finally went to the Police Department and contacted Detective H. O. Large of the Palm Beach Police Force. By stipulation of the parties an extract of the daily report submitted by Detective H. O. Large of the Town of Palm Beach was filed in evidence. This report reads as follows:
'6:00 PM 1-5-49
'Chas. J. Kuntz, Apt. 5, Lido Pools came to the station and reported that Harry Maiborne took without the consent of the owner 'Chas. J. Kuntz' one dingy boat from the parking lot of the Lido Pools on or about Nov. 27th, 1948. Value of dingy when bought $175.00.
'(Signed) H. O. Large'.
At the time of the trial Kuntz, Sr. was asked the question: 'I ask you, did you ask them to make the arrest that night?' and he answered: 'I told him it was necessary, yes, to arrest him'. Large, the detective, testified, that Kuntz, Sr. came down one night and wanted some action and wanted it then.
As a result of the activities of Kuntz, Sr. and his complaints to the Police Department, and his insistence upon arrest, Maiborne was arrested and was put through the usual procedure of being booked and finger-printed. He was placed in a cell at the Palm Beach Police Station and afterwards taken to the County Jail in Palm Beach. Kuntz, Sr. was present at the Police Station when Maiborne was brought in under arrest. Maiborne was finally tried in the Criminal Court of Record on a charge of grand larceny of the boat in question and was acquitted by the jury. He filed this suit against Kuntz, Sr. for malicious prosecution, which resulted in a verdict in favor of Maiborne in the sum of $10,000. At the trial for malicious prosecution all of the conversations between the parties, the happenings at the police station, much of the evidence on the trial for grand larceny and other testimony was before the jury. It is of particular significance that Kuntz, Sr. admitted at this trial that he did not believe Maiborne intended to steal the boat.
Upon motion for new trial filed by Kuntz, Sr. the Court denied the motion in the event the plaintiff should within 10 days file a remittitur in the amount of $9,000, but provided that in the event the plaintiff failed to file such remittitur, the motion for new trial be granted, on the question of damages.
This appeal is prosecuted from the order above mentioned by Maiborne, the plaintiff in the Court below, appellant here. Assignments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wackenhut Corp. v. Canty
...punitive damages awarded bears no relation to the amount the defendant is able to pay and results in economic castigation. Maiborne v. Kuntz, Fla.1952, 56 So.2d 720; Hutchinson v. Lott, Fla.App.1959, 110 So.2d 442. Second, where the tort committed is lacking the degree of maliciousness and/......
-
Richardson v. Bradley
...v. Gazelle, 523 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). False testimony during the prosecution is also evidence of malice. See Maiborne v. Kuntz, 56 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 1952). Probable cause "requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity......
-
Lassiter v. International Union of Operating Engineers
...is able to pay since the pecuniary punishment to a man of large means would not be the same as to a man of small means. Maiborne v. Kuntz, Fla., 56 So.2d 720; Jones v. Greeley, 25 Fla. 629, 6 So. 448." The court in Air Line Employees Ass'n International v. Turner, 291 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA......
-
Herilla v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
...permits evidence of the wealth of a tortfeasor as a measure of the amount of punitive damages which should be awarded. Maiborne v. Kuntz, Fla., 56 So.2d 720 ((1952)); Hutchinson v. Lott, supra. The theory is the wealthier the wrongdoer, the greater the award. Otherwise stated, a relatively ......