McKnight v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 70--248,70--248 |
| Citation | 242 So.2d 478 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | W. L. McKNIGHT, d/b/a Webster Outdoor Advertising Company, Appellant, v. HIALEAH RACE COURSE, INC., Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., Tropical Park, Inc., Florida Thoroughbred Council, Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, Appellees. |
Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth and Thomas M. Carney, Miami, for appellant.
Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Carson & Wahl and James Knight, miami, for Hialeah Race Course, Inc.
Landerfeld & Romanik, Hollywood, for Gulfstream Park Racing Ass'n, Inc.
Worley & Gautier, Miami, for Tropical Aprk, Inc.
No appearance for Florida Thoroughbred Council and Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Ass'n.
Before CHARLES CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
The appellant filed an action against Hialeah Race Cource, Inc., Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., Tropical Park, Inc., Florida Thoroughbred Council, Florida Thoroughbred Breeders' Association, and the Florida State Racing Commission, seeking damages for breach of contract.
By the initial complaint and the amended complaint it was alleged that Florida Thoroughbred Council, described as a voluntary association, acting as agent of the Florida State Racing Commission had contracted with plaintiff on behalf of the State Racing Commission for certain advertising; that the remaining defendants, other than the Florida State Racing Commission, acted for Florida Thoroughbred Council in the making of the contract; that the plaintiff performed until defendants renounced the contract; and that defendants had refused to pay therefor, and had breached the contract for such advertising.
A copy of the contract was attached to the original complaint, and was made a part of the amended complaint. The document, signed in the manner shown below, was addressed to and accepted by the plaintiff Webster Outdoor Advertising Company. It stated: 'We hereby authorize and direct you to paint and execute an advertising display at locations and at prices per month as indicated below for Florida State Racing Commission,' etc. Set out below therein were statements of the period and times for performance, with a listing of the locations for such advertising and sizes and prices. The contract contained a number of printed provisions, followed by the signatures and acceptance which appeared thereon in the following form:
It was alleged that Florida Thoroughbred Council had customarily acted for the State Racing Commission as its agent, in the making of contracts, and that the Council was so acting on this contract with actual or apparent authority. It was further alleged that the other defendants, whose representatives appeared as signers on the document, were authorized by them respectively to enter into such contract on behalf of the Florida Thoroughbred Council.
On a motion of the Florida State Racing Commission to dismiss the original complaint, an order was entered dismissing the cause with prejudice as to that defendant, on its claim and argument that the State Racing Commission as a state agency was not bound by a contract made for it by a corporation or association purporting to act as its agent but which had not been so designated by law. On an earlier appeal taken by the plaintiff from the order dismissing the State Racing Commission, this court affirmed. 235 So.2d 552. Motions of the other defendants to dismiss the original complaint were granted with leave to amend. When the amended complaint was filed it included the State Racing Commission as a defendant. Based on its prior dismissal with prejudice, the Racing Commission moved for and obtained another order of dismissal, which order is not involved on this appeal. The other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Their motions were granted, and the plaintiff prosecuted this appeal.
The trial court was eminently correct in dismissing the amended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hettinger v. Kleinman
...supra, 65 Fla. at 158, 61 So. at 245; Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Amster, supra, 511 So.2d at 598-99; McKnight v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 242 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970); see Margolis v. Andromides 732 So.2d 507, 509 (Dist. Ct.App.1999). Thus, "the measure of recovery is not t......
-
Martha A. Gottfried, Inc. v. Amster
...authority, unless he has manifested that he does not make such warranty or the other party knows that the agent is not so authorized." McKnight at 480. This action for breach of warranty of implied authority was first adopted by the Florida Supreme Court in Tedder v. Riggin, 65 Fla. 153, 61......
-
Fogarty v. State
...618 S.W.2d 458, 461 (Mo.App.1981); Glendale Realty, Inc. v. Johnson, 6 Wash.App. 752, 495 P.2d 1375 (1972); McKnight v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc., 242 So.2d 478 (Fla.App.1970); Yoakum v. Tarver, 256 Cal.App.2d 202, 64 Cal.Rptr. 7 (1967); Weinstein v. Rothberg, 87 Ga.App. 94, 73 S.E.2d 106 A......
-
Balzebre v. Pearson, s. 72-1024
...issues raised by the appellants with regard to their action for specific performance are put to rest. McKnight v. Hialeah Race Course, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 242 So.2d 478; Florida Capital Corp. v. Robert J. Bisset Constr., Inc., Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 595; 1 Fla.Jur. Agency § 35 Further, at ......