Sanford v. Abrams

• Citation: 24 Fla. 181,2 So. 373
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 18 April 1887
• Parties: SANFORD v. ABRAMS.

2 So. 373

24 Fla. 181

SANFORD v. ABRAMS.

Florida Supreme Court

April 18, 1887

Appeal from Orange county, Seventh judicial circuit.

This is an appeal from Orange county circuit court. This suit was commenced January 6, A. D. 1883, by the appellee against appellant in assumpsit. The declaration was filed February 5 A. D. 1883. It contains two special counts, and the usual common counts. The first count alleges that on January 1 1881, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as the agent of defendant to make a contract for defendant of the purchase of a large amount of lands from the trustees of the internal improvement fund of the state of Florida; that the defendant fixed the price to be paid for the land at 50 cents per acre, and in bodies of not less than 640 acres; that plaintiff, under his employment, did contract with said trustees for the purchase of a large amount of land for defendant at the price of 40 cents per acre, to be selected in bodies of 640 acres each; that said contract was of great advantage to the defendant, and which was made by plaintiff at great expense and labor, and for which the defendant never paid plaintiff, to the damage of the plaintiff of $20,000 the second count, that defendant, by his negligence, failed to comply with his part of the contract of the purchase of said land, and lost his right to the same when defendant came to plaintiff, and employed him to renew said contract, which the plaintiff did at great expense, and with much labor, for which the defendant has never paid him. Then follow the common counts.

It does not appear that, when defendant employed the plaintiff, there was any stipulation as to the compensation plaintiff should receive from the defendant for acting as defendant's agent in making these contracts. It is nowhere shown in the pleading, nor is there any evidence offered to that effect. The plaintiff, therefore, under the employment, was entitled to such reasonable compensation as his labor was worth.

The defendant appeared, and pleaded to the declaration by filing (1) the plea of the general issue; (2) payment; (3) accord and satisfaction. The plaintiff moved the court to order defendant to elect between his plea of the general issue and his second and third plea filed, of accord and satisfaction and the election being made, that the other pleas be struck out, which motion was granted. Under this ruling, the defendant withdrew his first and third pleas.

The defendant then offered and presented for filing a number of pleas, among them a plea of accord and satisfaction; and after setting up the facts of the transaction by the plaintiff and defendant in regard to the employment of the plaintiff by defendant, the nature of the labor performed by plaintiff for defendant, and the subsequent act of the parties in regard to the whole matter of controversy between them, the court denied the application of defendant. The defendant then moved the court to reinstate his third plea. The plea of the general issue being stricken out, the cause was submitted to the jury upon the pleas of payment and accord and satisfaction.

The evidence in the case is voluminous on the part of the plaintiff. It shows that the plaintiff made journeys to Tallahassee, and other points connected with his employment by defendant; that he expended much time and money in the interest of his principal, and for the purpose of making the contracts he was employed to procure. None of the witnesses examined fixed with any degree of certainty (except the plaintiff) what would have been a reasonable compensation for the services of the plaintiff in and about the making of the contracts for the purchase of the lands from the trustees of the internal improvement fund of the state for defendant. As to the money expended by plaintiff, it appears from his evidence that it reached near the sum of $1,800.

In the latter part of 1881 the plaintiff threatened suit against the defendant to recover compensation for his services rendered the defendant as his agent in making a purchase of the land from the internal improvement board of Florida. The defendant, being absent in Europe, employed the law firm of Fleming & Daniel, of Jacksonville, to represent him, and the Hon. E. K. Foster intervened, as the friend of both parties, to see if the matter could not be settled, and from thenceforward to April 13, 1882, Messrs. Fleming & Daniel and E. K. Foster co-operated to bring about a settlement between the parties. Various sums were named by plaintiff as a basis of compromise, $6,000 and $4,000, which were declined by defendant's attorney and friend. Finally, in the latter part of March, 1882, the plaintiff submitted a proposition of compromise, to-wit, 'defendant to pay $2,000 cash, receipt a lumber bill, and a bill for balance due by plaintiff to defendant on the purchase of a lot in Sanford.' This proposition was to be accepted or rejected in time to allow plaintiff, if rejected, to sue to May rules, 1882. On March 31, 1882, plaintiff wrote Col. Daniel: 'If Mr. Sanford agrees to my last proposition, please deposit the money in Ambler, Marvin & Stockton's Bank, to the credit of my firm.' On April 8, 1882, the plaintiff wrote Col. J. J. Daniel, of the firm of Fleming & Daniel, the following letter:

EXHIBIT F.

'TAVARES, ORANGE CO., FLA., April 8, 1882.

'Col. J. J. Daniel--MY DEAR SIR: On Monday last Mr. Ingraham informed me he had received a telegram from Gen. Sanford which left the acceptance or rejection of my proposition of settlement to you and E. K. Foster; and supposing, from what both of you had said to me, that the proposition would be agreeable to you I acted as if the matter was settled. Under date of the 6th, Ambler, Marvin & Stockton wrote me that $2,000 had not been placed to my credit. As a consequence, I am 'all at sea' in the matter. If I cannot have a settlement, I must withdraw the proposition, as I must make arrangements elsewhere. As I mentioned to you, my proposition was $2,000 in cash, and a receipt for a lumber bill I have in Sanford, and a deed for a lot purchased by me, and against which I have an offset of nearly two hundred dollars. Will you please to write me at this place (Tavares) and tell me how the matter stands. I am very much disappointed, as I have been pressed for money to carry on my enterprises, and had made the offer of settlement solely because of that fact. Trusting you are well, I am, my dear colonel,

'Yours, very truly,

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

Then follow the following telegrams and letters between the plaintiff and E. K. Foster and Col. J. J. Daniel touching the compromise and settlement of the subject-matter of the suit between the plaintiff and defendant:

EXHIBIT E.

'TAVARES, ORANGE CO., FLA., March 31, 1882.

'Col. J. J. Daniel--DEAR SIR: If Mr. Sanford agrees to my last proposition, please deposit the money in Ambler, Marvin & Stockton's Bank, to the credit of my firm. I ask this, presuming that the money will be paid through you. In haste, yours truly,

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

EXHIBIT A.

'Pendryville, Fla., 9, 1882.

'To E. K. Foster, Quincy, Fla.: Has Sanford accepted my proposition? Answer at once.

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

EXHIBIT J.

'jacksonville, fla., April 11, 1882.

'Hon. A. St. Clair Abrams--MY DEAR SIR: Your letter, April 8th, was received this morning. We telegraphed General Sanford your proposition, and he has answered authorizing us to settle for two thousand dollars, and asked for information as to lot and lumber. We have written Mr. Ingraham to wire Sanford the amount due by you on lot and lumber. Give us a little more time. We think we can arrange the matter satisfactorily.

'Very truly yours.

FLEMING & DANIEL.'

EXHIBIT B.

'TALLAHASSEE, FLA., April 11, 1882.

'To A. St. Clair Abrams, Lake Eustis, Orange Co., Fla.: Fanford agreed to two thousand dollars. Cabled for amount of lot and lumber bill. We answered. Have had no reply. How late can we have to wait answer? I was absent when you dispatched yesterday.

E. K. Foster.'

EXHIBIT C.

'Pendryville, Fla., 13.

'E. K. Foster, Talla.: Deposit two thousand with Ambler by Friday, and all right.

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

EXHIBIT D.

'Tallahassee, 14, 1882.

'To A. St. Clair Abrams, Lake Eustis, Fla.: Telegram received by mail. Wire down. Have telegraphed Daniel your dispatch.

E. K. FOSTER.'

EXHIBIT G.

'Tavares, Orange Co., Fla., Monday, April 17, 1882.

'Mess. Fleming & Daniel, Jacksonville--GENTLEMEN: Having on Saturday received from Mr. E. K. Foster a telegram stating that Mr. Sanford had declined to accept my proposition, I will commence suit at once, and file praecipe to-day. If you will accept service, I will not apply for attachment; but, if not, I will, and then proceed to file bill in equity to subject the Belle Aire grove and other property to the attachment. This I desire to avoid; hence my hope that you will accept service.

'Yours, truly.

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

EXHIBIT H.

'Tavares, Orange Co., Fla., April 19, 1882.

'Mess. Fleming & Daniel--GENTS: When I wrote you from Orlando on Monday, I was not aware that the Sanford matter had been settled. I arrived here this morning, and found telegram from Ambler announcing that the $2,000 had been paid into his bank; of course, that dispenses with may last letter to you. Accept my thanks for your kindness in this business. * * *

'I am yours, truly,

ALEX. ST. CLAIR ABRAMS.'

In December, 1882, the plaintiff informed Mr. E. K. Foster that he did not consider the matter settled. Mr. Foster told plaintiff he did. No offer was ever made by the plaintiff to refund the $2,000 he drew out of Ambler, Marvin &amp Stockton's Bank, that had been deposited there by Col. J. J. Daniel as attorney for defen...