Pickard v. Maritime Holdings Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1964
• Docket Number: No. 63-223,63-223
• Citation: 161 So.2d 239
• Parties: Rod PICKARD and George H. Henry, Appellants, v. MARITIME HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Panamanian corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 239

161 So.2d 239

Rod PICKARD and George H. Henry, Appellants, v. MARITIME HOLDINGS CORPORATION, a Panamanian corporation, Appellee.

No. 63-223.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 25, 1964.

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1964.

Jepeway & Gassen, George H. Henry, Miami, for appellants.

Arthur J. Berk, Miami Beach, Joseph Pardo, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and HORTON and TILLMAN PEARSON, JJ.

PEARSON, TILLMAN, Judge.

Rod Pickard and George H. Henry have appealed from a final judgment of $15,000 entered against them jointly and severally in an action brought by Maritime Holdings Corporation, a Panamanian corporation. The final judgment was entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The complaint charged the defendants-appellants in three counts. Count One sounded in tort for fraud; Count Two was against Rod Pickard only, and charged additional acts of fraud; Count Three alleged a conspiracy between Rod Pickard and George H. Henry (who was Pickard's attorney) to perform the acts set forth in Count One. The essential questions to be decided on this appeal are (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury verdict as to each of the defendants and (2) whether certain alleged errors of procedure denied appellants a fair trial. We affirm as to the defendant-appellant Rod Pickard and reverse as to defendant-appellant George H. Henry.

Since this is an appeal from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict, we are required to accept the facts developed at the trial in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. We conceive these facts thus stated to be that Pickard while in Venezuela, contacted Sidney Caplan and received from him $15,000 with which to purchase and transport the Yawl 'Desiree' from Venezuela to Miami, Florida. There was an oral agreement between these two men that the yawl would be sold and after repaying Caplan's $15,000 the remainder would be divided 51% to Caplan and 49% to Pickard. Pickard arrange to have the yacht brought to Miami and docket at the Miami Shipbuilding Corporation docks. Pickard had his office in the Miami Shipbuilding Corporation Building.

The shipbuilding corporation became insolvent and George H. Henry, as attorney for Rod Pickard, approached the receiver for the shipbuilding concern and stated that he could get the receiver's money for pastdue dockage if the receiver would authorize Henry to bring a libel against the 'Desiree'. The libel was prepared by Henry and filed. Then Henry prepared and filed for Pickard an intervening libel in which Pickard claimed that he had owned the vessel and that he had transferred it to the Maritime Holding Corporation for a consideration of $15,000 which was not paid. Attorney Henry swore to the truth of the facts alleged in the intervening libel, not upon information and belief but as of his own knowledge. The vessel was sold under the libel and the intervening libel without the Maritime Holding Corporation or its President and principal stockholder, Sidney Caplan, being informed of the admiralty proceedings. Pickard received $6,500 of the sale price and Henry received certain money as an attorney's fee.

During the trial of Caplan's action against Pickard and Henry and at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, each defendant moved for a directed verdict. These motions were denied. At the close of all of the evidence the defendants failed to move for a directed verdict but they filed motions for a new trial designed to test the sufficiency of the evidence.

Appellant Rod Pickard urges that the judgment against him should be reversed because the court erred in refusing to admit an exhibit entitled 'stipulations' which he claims revealed certain dealings between himself and another corporation controlled by Sidney Caplan. It is his claim that these 'stipulations' would demonstrate an indebtedness from the last mentioned corporation to him in the amount of $15,000 and that therefore, the jury was entitled to know of the indebtedness because it was the basis of his claimed indebtedness against the ship. We have examined the tendered document and find that it makes no reference to the ship, and in fact, is entirely irrelevant to appellant Pickard's claim that he was due $15,000 from the Maritime Holding Corporation as purchase price for the Yawl 'Desiree.' No error has been demonstrated.

Appellant Pickard's remaining points urge that the evidence is not sufficient to support the jury's verdict against him. We feel that the evidence as viewed in the summary of the facts is sufficient to support the jury's verdict against appellant Pickard.

Appellant Henry urges that the evidence is not sufficient to support the judgment against him because it affirmatively appears that he was acting as attorney for Pickard. It is recognized that an attorney acting under employment, at the direction of his client and in legal manner is not liable for the consequences of his client's actions. Waugh v. Dibbens, 61 Okl. 221, 160 P. 589, L.R.A.1917B, 360; Lee v. Brown, 99 Neb. 661, 157 N.W. 633; Citizens' Nat. Bank of Cameron v. Morrison, Tex.Civ.App.1932, 50 S.W.2d 346; 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 52, subd. b, fn 94 (1937). Thus, the question now before us is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record upon which the jury could find that Attorney Henry acted illegally or beyond his employment in order to secure an unconscionable...