Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Inv. Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 64-874,64-874 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SECURITY UNDERWRITING CONSULTANTS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. COLLINS, TUTTLE INVESTMENT CORP., a Delaware corporation, Appellee . |
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and James E. Tribble, Miami, for appellant.
David Goldman, Miami, for appellee.
Before CARROLL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.
Appellant-plaintiff brought suit in replevin against appellee-defendant to recover certain office furniture and equipment.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff at all times material to the cause has been and is entitled to the immediate possession of the property in question and that the defendant retains and wrongfully withholds the property from possession of the plaintiff, notwithstanding, plaintiff's repeated demands upon the defendant to surrender possession of said property.
The evidence shows that the plaintiff entered into a lease for office space in the Ainsley Building with the Ainsley Realty Company. Thereafter plaintiff purchased office furniture and equipment which it used while in occupacy of the offices. After occupying the offices for about one and one-half years, plaintiff obtained a release from its lease of the suite. Thereupon a corporation named Dunhill & Company, Inc. leased the offices which plaintiff formerly occupied. Plaintiff left its furniture in the offices on loan to the new tenant, Dunhill, because of the friendship existing between the officers of the two corporation. After Dunhill entered into the lease, the building was sold to the defendant corporation. Dunhill went out of business and ceased occupancy of the offices in July, 1962. Mr. Davis, plaintiff's vice-president and secretary-treasurer testified that he spoke to defendant's building manager about the return of the furniture and equipment and was told that he could not have the property. He further testified that repeated demands were made upon the defendant for the return of the property, all of which were refused.
The cause was tried before a jury upon issues raised by the complaint and a general denial in the answer. Upon completion of plaintiff's case in chief, the trial judge granted defendant's motion for directed verdict and entered a final judgment for defendant. It is from this judgment that plaintiff appeals.
Appellant's main contention is that the trial judge committed reversible error in directing a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff's case.
The record reveals that the trial judge's principal reason for directing a verdict for the defendant was that he was of the opinion that there was an absence of proof of owernship in plaintiff at the time of plaintiff's demand that defendant release the property. We find this to have been error and reverse.
In our view the evidence in this case was ample to prove at lease a prima facie case, and the trial judge erred as a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Senfeld v. Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Co. (Cayman) Ltd.
...Light Co. v. John Le Roy Hutchinson Properties, 99 Fla. 410, 128 So. 831 (1930); see also Security Underwriting Consultants v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., 173 So.2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Thus, the cause of action for replevin first arises with the refusal to return the property upon......
-
Reeder v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc.
...National Bank v. Louisville and N.R. Co., 80 Fla. 319, 85 So. 916 (1920); see also, Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corporation, Fla.App., 173 So.2d 752 (1965). This point is especially true when the court is confronted with a negligence case, Brookbank......
-
Collins, Tuttle Inv. Corp. v. Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc.
...This is the second appearance of this cause in this court. See our prior opinion reported in Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 752. Following the issuance of the mandate therein, the cause duly came on for trial and resulted......
-
In re Armenteros
...establish their right to immediate possession of the stock certificate which they seek. Security Underwriting Consultants Inc., v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 752, 753. Debtors' only evidence is the stock certificate, which supports the inference that title to ......
-
Obtaining a replevin writ prior to final judgment: with or without notice.
...demand upon a defendant before bringing a replevin suit. See Security Underwriting Consultants, Inc. v. Collins, Tuttle Investment Corp., 173 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). Subsection (3) has been interpreted to mean that a defendant is forbidden from re-replevin of property which has alrea......