Meade v. Super Test Sales, Inc., 74--140

Decision Date15 January 1975
Docket NumberNo. 74--140,74--140
Citation306 So.2d 211
PartiesFrancis E. MEADE, Appellant, v. SUPER TEST SALES, INC., Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

John B. Cechman, Goldberg, Rubinstein & Buckley, Fort Myers, for appellant.

Julian D. Clarkson, Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, fort Myers, for appellee.

OVERSTREET, MURRAY W., Associate Judge.

Summary Judgment was entered against appellant (plaintiff below) in a malicious prosecution action.

The pleadings show that appellant was the manager of one of appellee's gas stations and as such was solely responsible for the conduct and operation of the business, including collecting, accounting for and depositing all receipts from sales. His particular duties were to open the station, work the morning shift, make out daily reports, send the reports to Tampa and make deposits at the Edison National Bank.

On January 16, a Sunday morning, appellant went to the home of William K. Biegiert and asked Biegiert to work the morning shift for him. At that time appellant appeared to Biegiert to be half drunk or lacking sleep, was unshaven, and looked unkempt. Meade then pulled from his pocket a wad of bills and threw several on the table to pay Biegiert for working his (Meade's) shift. At that time Meade told Biegiert he had been out all night and was going home to get some sleep.

The next day, January 17, Meade was on the job and had started making out his report when the company supervisor appeared at the place of business and informed Meade he was going to replace him as manager and audit him out. On deposition, Meade testified that the money bags were in the safe for Friday, Saturday and Sunday's receipts and bank deposit slips had been prepared and the duplicates mailed to the Tampa office, but when company officials compared the reports with funds on hand and deposits, they found one day's deposit missing, whereupon they sent a message to Meade that they wanted to talk with him. However, Meade did not return to the station. Moreover, Meade had told Biegiert on prior occasions that he had to accumulate money at the station before making a deposit, meaning that 'he was using company money for his own personal benefit.'

Thereupon, a duly authorized company representative made or filed a complaint against Meade with the proper authorities, after which an information charging Meade with grand larceny was filed by the State Attorney, a trial by jury was had, and at the close of the trial the trial judge directed a verdict for the defendant. Shortly thereafter Meade filed suit against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • December 8, 1977
    ...decision. In so doing, the district court distinguished Ward v. Allen, 152 Fla. 82, 11 So.2d 193 (1942), and Meade v. Super Test Sales, Inc., 306 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). The Meade court merely found that there was reasonable cause for the state attorney's decision to prosecute. Simila......
  • Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Scarbrough, Y--160
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1976
    ...cert. pending, we decline to accord the Gallucci presumption to a prosecutor's decision. We do not construe Meade v. Super Test Sales, Inc., 306 So.2d 211 (Fla.App.2d 1975), as supporting appellants' position. Rather, that decision found that 'there was reasonable cause presented' for the S......

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