Smith v. Hollingsworth
| Decision Date | 18 April 1923 |
| Citation | 96 So. 394,85 Fla. 431 |
| Parties | SMITH v. HOLLINGSWORTH et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by Henry W. Smith against J. L. Hollingsworth and another. From the decree rendered, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Bill for accounting against agents alleging injury by misrepresentations held sufficient. An allegation in a bill of complaint for an accounting against the agents of complainants, where they allege that the defendants, their agents, by misrepresentations and falsehoods misled the complainants to their injury and the defendants' pecuniary advantage, states sufficient ground for equitable relief.
Neither equity nor law will relieve against credulousness and inexcusable indifference to one's own interest in transaction with stranger. Equity nor law will relieve against credulousness and inexcusable indifference to one's own interest in a transaction with another, where one has no legal right to rely upon the statements and representations of such other person.
Mere statement of opinion or belief or expectation, although false, constitute fraud between persons trading as strangers. A mere statement of opinion or belief or expectation although false or resting upon no information, is not such a false representation as to constitute fraud when made or exchanged between persons trading as strangers for an article of personal property.
Findings of fact by chancellor not disturbed unless clearly erroneous. The findings by the chancellor on questions of fact will not be distrubed by an appellate court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Soto County; George W. Whitehurst, judge.
A. B McMullen and C. Edmund Worth, both of Tampa, for appellant.
Treadwell & Treadwell, of Arcadia, for appellees.
This is a suit by Henry W. Smith against J. L. and A. P Hollingsworth to declare a trust in 20 acres of land, enjoin the negotiation by the defendants of certain promissory notes aggregating $35,000 which were delivered by the complainant to the defendats upon the conclusion of a certain sale described in the bill, and for an accounting by the defendants and payment by them to the complainant of a certain sum of money alleged to have been fraudulently obtained by the defendants from the complainant in a certain transaction with third persons in which it was alleged the defendants acted for the complainant.
The transaction out of which this litigation grew, as described by the bill, was one in which the complainant became the purchaser through the Hollingsworths of a herd of cattle, 40 acres of land, and leases upon certain other lands--all belonging to W. W. and Martha F. Langford. The bill alleges that the defendants formerly owned the cattle and sold them to the Langfords, who executed to the defendants a mortgage to secure a large part of the indebtedness due for the purchase price of the cattle; that the defendants represented to the complainant that the indebtedness was due and unpaid and that the Langfords were in a dispute as to the ownership of the cattle; that the defendants were dissatisfied with the situation and offered to negotiate with the Langfords in complainant's behalf for the purchase of the properties, complainant to assume the indebtedness to the defendants less a cash payment of $5,000 to be made by complainant.
It is alleged that many misrepresentations were made by the defendants to the complainant as to the price at which the Langfords would sell, the number and value of the cattle on the range, the yearly calf tallies, the number of young and old steers, and the number of beef cattle which the Langfords had sold; that the complainant employed the defendants to represent him and act as his agent and on his behalf in the purchase of the stock of cattle from the Langfords and the 1410 acres, more or less, of 'leases on grazing lands' and the fee-simple title to 40 acres of land in the 'grazing range.' It is alleged that the consideration which induced the defendants to act for the complainant in the transaction was the 'benefits' which the defendants 'considered that they would derive from the sale of the said cattle, lands and leases' to the complainant. For this consideration the defendants, so it is alleged, agreed to act for the complainant in the transaction, engage the services of a lawyer in Arcadia, and secure the conveyance to the complainant of the land described in the bill of complaint.
It is then alleged that the defendants violated their duty and ignored their obligations to the complainant by securing a conveyance to themselves of 20 acres of the 40 acres of land included in the properties; that the properties were not worth the price which the defendants had represented them to be worth, namely, $105,000, but were worth only $70,000; and that the complainant relied upon and trusted the defendants made no effort to verify any of their statements as to the number and value of the cattle, but accepted and relied upon the defendants' statements and representation , and paid to the defendants $5,000 in cash, $35,000 in promissory notes of certain third...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramel v. Chasebrook Const. Co.
...to complain. These contentions might well have some merit as to defects which were discernible upon a visual inspection. Smith v. Hollingsworth, 85 Fla. 431, 96 So. 394. It is well settled that where one claims that fraudulent representations have been made to him, he is charged with knowle......
-
Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co.
...obviously hostile to the hearer and interested in misleading him. 12 Ruling Case Law, 352; 26 Corpus Juris, 1141, 1142; Smith v. Hollingsworth, 85 Fla. 431, 96 So. 394. Even where a representation is made, if at the time it is accompanied by a qualified statement which shows that the person......
-
Evans v. Gray
...is an opinion and, as such, is not actionable. Williams v. McFadden, supra; Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173; Smith v. Hollingsworth, 85 Fla. 431, 96 So. 394; 14 Fla.Jur., Fraud and Deceit, § If the sellers had, by some fraud, prevented the purchasers from attempting to learn the tr......
-
Travelodge Intern., Inc. v. Eastern Inns, Inc.
...no basis for relief where the parties are dealing at arms length. Hart v. Marbury, 82 Fla. 317, 90 So. 173 (1921); Smith v. Hollingsworth, 85 Fla. 431, 96 So. 394 (1923); Bower v. Selecman, 52 So.2d 680 (Fla.1951). Appellants also refer to the decision in Brod v. Jernigan, 188 So.2d 575 (Fl......