Pittman v. Roberts, 1679
| Decision Date | 29 July 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1679,1679 |
| Parties | L. C. PITTMAN, F. Malcolm Cunningham and D. A. Chaikin, d/b/a Acre-Home Developers, Appellants, v. Bertha ROBERTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Holland & Smith, West Palm Beach, for appellants.
Hamilton & Nason, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Protesting the result of a jury verdict for a breach of a building contract returned in the court below for the plaintiff in the sum of $6,437.50, the defendants have instituted this appeal from the judgment entered on the verdict.
Issues tried were created under an amended complaint and the answer thereto. The complaint charged that L. C. Pittman, F. Malcolm Cunningham, and D. A. Chaikin, doing business as Acre-Home Developers, agreed as undisclosed principals to build a house for the plaintiff by a contract entered into by Pittman as their agent; that under the contract the defendants agreed to erect, finish, and deliver the house in true artisan and workmanlike manner and to build it in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings made for the plaintiff; that the defendants in violation of the contract failed to do this but that there were, instead, substantial deviations from the plans, together with defective construction and unskilled workmanship.
Although the defendants admitted that they were a partnership doing business as Acre-Home Developers, they denied that the contract was entered into on their behalf as undisclosed principals by L. C. Pittman acting as their agent, and they further denied any liability.
The agreement, a simple contract for the construction of a private home, was executed by L. C. Pittman and Bertha Roberts in their own names. Generally, the contract of an agent dealing in his own name without disclosing the identity of his principal is the contract of the principal. This rule as to liability of an undisclosed principal applies to a simple executory contract or one not fully performed. Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 1931, 103 Fla. 848, 138 So. 369; and Humphrey v. Bussey, 1930, 99 Fla. 1249, 128 So. 841.
For an undisclosed principal to be held for the acts of his alleged agent, the relation of principal and agent must be proved. This may be accomplished through circumstantial as well as through direct evidence. Parol evidence is admissible to identify a principal as the real party in interest in a transaction. Love v. Brown Development Co., 1930, 100 Fla. 1373, 131 So. 144; and 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colucci v. Greenfield, 88-903
...2d DCA 1966); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Mendez v. Ortega, 134 So.2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So.2d 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); Florio v. State, 119 So.2d 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); In re Coleman's Estate, 103 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958); In re Weis......
-
Gage v. Gage
...into jurisdiction is circumscribed by the record before the court. Cobb v. Cobb, 145 W.Va. 107, 113 S.E.2d 193 (1960); Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So.2d 333 (Fla.App.1960). We therefore decline to consider matters dehors the record and confine our review to the record of the trial court. Examin......
-
Morrison v. C. J. Jones Lumber Co., 32927
...be said that the court based its decision upon questions constituting fundamental error. See Tracey v. State, supra, and Pittman v. Roberts, 122 So.2d 333 (Fla.App.1960). The question of the manifest weight of the evidence or the denial of a motion for new trial on which the appellate court......
-
Jones v. State
...v. State, Fla.1952, 58 So.2d 157; Florio v. State ex rel. Epperson, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 305, 309, 80 A.L.R.2d 1117; Pittman v. Roberts, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 333; 2 Fla.Jur. Appeal & Error, § 87. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence, aside from the testimony complained of, was s......