DAVID MANN, APPELLANT,
v.
LENA HORNE BEAUTY PRODUCTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
The court held that the plaintiff could not recover on his claims because he had not provided any consideration for the alleged stock purchase, making conversion and breach of contract impossible.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for conversion of stock, breach of contract, and negligence. The plaintiff alleged the defendant wrongfully paid mone…
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 Consideration cases and more on FLexlaw
By this appeal the appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an adverse summary final judgment. His complaint sounded in three counts, to wit: (1) Conversion by the appellee, Solomon, of certain stocks originally to have been purchased by the appellant pursuant to the terms of the agreement between the parties. (2) Breach of contract by the appellee, Solomon, for failure to complete the agreement to purchase the appellant’s interest in the venture. (3) Negligence on the part of the appellee, Solomon, in allegedly and wrongfully paying monies due the appellant to Solomon’s agent, the appellee, Meyers.
No error is found in the action of the trial judge, because it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff had never parted with any money for the alleged purchase of the stock interest involved. Not having parted with any consideration, it was impossible for the money to have been converted, etc.
It is apparent that the plaintiff originally advanced funds for a transaction completely independent of the one sued upon, and no error has been made to appear in the action of the trial court, which is here under review. See: 7 Fla.Jur., Conversion, § 2; 7 Fla.Jur., Contracts, §§ 14, 40; Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 715.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Easton-Babcock & Assocs., Inc. v. Trivest, Inc., 983 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…contrary, nor did the trial court make any findings on this point. Because Easton-Babcock had no funds to distribute to Trivest, it was not entitled to the entry of partial summary judgment in its favor. See Mann v. Lena Horne Beauty Products, Inc., 174 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(where this Court held that “it is apparent from the record that the plaintiff had never parted with any money for the alleged purchase of the stock interest involved. Not having parted with any consideration, it was impossibl…
Authorities Cited
- Hardcastle v. Mobley, 143 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)