SHAPIRO BROS. FACTORS CORP., APPELLANT,
v.
MAY'S MOVING & STORAGE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND MAY'S TRANSFER, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a warehouseman being sued for mis-delivery of goods. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant warehouseman, finding substantial evidence to support the decision.
Yes, there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury's verdict in favor of the defendant warehouseman.
“where a warehouseman delivers goods to one who is not in fact lawfully entitled to the possession of them, the warehouseman shall be liable as for conversion to all having a right of property or possession in the goods if he delivered the goods otherwise than to the person lawfully entitled to the possession of the goods or his agent.”
This quote states the relevant statute governing warehouseman liability for mis-delivery.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShapiro Bros. Factors Corp. (plaintiff) sued May's Moving & Storage, Inc. (defendant) for mis-delivery of goods. The plaintiff argued that the defenda…
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 Warehouseman Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff, Shapiro Bros. Factors Corp., seeks reversal of a final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in an action for mis-delivery.
Section 678.10, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. as it pertains to the case before us provides that where a warehouseman delivers goods to one who is not in fact lawfully entitled to the possession of them, the warehouseman shall be liable as for conversion to all having a right of property or possession in the goods if he delivered the goods otherwise than to the person lawfully entitled to the possession of the goods or his agent.
After hearing the evidence, the jury resolved the conflicts in favor of the defendant. Our examination of the record reveals substantial competent evidence which sustains the jury verdict and we therefore affirm. Midstate Hauling Company v. Fowler, Fla.1965, 176 So.2d 87; Booker v. Lima, Fla.App.1966, 182 So.2d 642.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Felts v. Evans, 219 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)…gly affirmed. WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and SPECTOR, JJ., concur. .4 Blashfield Encyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice 305, Permanent Edition, § 2292. . § 320.59, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. . Pooton v. Berutich (Fla.App.1967), 199 So. 2d 139.…
Authorities Cited
- Midstate Hauling Co. v. Fowler, 176 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1965)
- Booker v. Udelio Lima and Mary Lima, 182 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)