M. E. GILLETT AND D. C. GILLETT, PARTNERS AS GILLETT & SON, APPELLANTS,
v.
HARRISON T. BEACHMAN, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Beachman sold his 2/8 interest in the Schooner "Brazos" to Gillett & Son for $3,250, but disputed whether he was entitled to dividends earned between the agreement date (April 1906) and the sale date (December 1906). The court held that Beachman's acceptance of payment and conveyance did not constitute a new contract releasing his claim to dividends, and affirmed a decree requiring Gillett & Son to pay him the disputed dividends.
The court held that the acceptance of payment and conveyance did not constitute a new contract releasing Beachman's claim to dividends, as the correspondence showed Beachman did not expressly or impliedly relinquish his dividend claim. Beachman was therefore entitled to recover the dividends due for the period from April to December 1906.
“The correspondence shows that Beacham did not expressly or impliedly relinquish his claim to dividends.”
Establishes that despite accepting payment and conveying his interest, Beachman's conduct and statements demonstrated he reserved his right to claim dividends earned during the interim period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 1906, Beachman agreed to sell Gillett & Son his 2/8 interest in the Schooner "Brazos" for $3,250 within one year. On December 4, 1906, Gillet…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Premiums cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
— Beachman agreed to sell Gillett & Son 2-8 interest in the Schooner “Brazos” at any time within a year from April, 1906, ,for $3,250.00, without interest. On December 4, 1906, Gillett & Son wired Beacham to know if he would accept $3,250.00 and interest for his 2-8 interest in the Schooner. Beacham replied that he would accept $3,250.00 for his % interest in the Schooner, but was entitled to his dividends on his earnings of the Schooner. Gillett & Son remitted $3,401.60 to Beacham, and Beacham sent them a bill of sale for his interest in the vessel, and at the same time protested that he was entitled to more as dividends. Finally suit was brought by Beacham against Gillett & Son for an accounting as to profits due him for the period from April, 1906, to December, 1906, when Beacham conveyed his interest in the vessel to Gillett & Son. The defense set up is that the acceptance of the $3,401.60 remitted to Beacham and the conveyance of his interest in the vessel to Gillett & Son constituted a new contract resulting in a conveyance of Beacham’s interest in the Schooner, including dividends due to him to the daté of the conveyance. This is not borne out by the evidence. The correspondence shows that Beacham did not expressly or impliedly relinquish his claim to dividends.
The decree in favor of Beacham is founded on statements filed by consent. It is contended that an error was made in allowing Beacham credit for insurance premiums paid on the vessel, but this is not sustained since Gillett & Son remitted $3,401.60 to Beacham, being $151.60 over the $3,250.00, due as the agreed purchase price, and this $151.60 is $28.48 in excess of the $123.12 paid by Beacham for insurance premiums, and the $28.48 was deducted from the $746.26 found to be due to Beacham by the statements filed by consent, leaving $717.78, the amount for which the decree was rendered. It was not Suggested in the Circuit Court that the insurance premium was not a proper charge against the vessel.
The defendants, appellants here, cannot complain that no replication was filed when the evidence in support of the bill of complaint was filed by consent, and sustains the decree.
The decree is affirmed.
Taxlor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Phinney v. Phinney, 77 Fla. 850 (Fla. 1919)…licting but there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be recersed on the evidence. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735, 55 South. Rep. 841; Alles v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421, 57 South. Rep. 614; Gillett v. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438, 57 South. Rep. 615; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34; Tampa Water Works Co. v. City of Tampa, decided at this term of the court. The right of the former wife to. be awarded permanent alimony after divorce granted the husband f…
-
Yaeger-Stuckey Live Stock Co. v. Fla. Pecan Endowment Co., 77 Fla. 735 (Fla. 1919)…icting, but there is ample evidence to support the finding of the chancellor, the decree will not be reversed on the evidence. Sheppard v. Crowley, 61 Fla. 735, 55 South. Rep. 841; Alies v. Diaz, 62 Fla. 421, 57 South. Rep. 614; Gillett v. Beachman, 63 Fla. 438, 57 South. Rep. 615; Millinor v. Thornhill, 63 Fla. 531, 58 South. Rep. 34. The decree is affirmed. Taylor,. Whitfield, Ellis and West, JJ., concur.…