Case ID: so2d_138/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

H. B. STRINGFELLOW, Appellant, v. Delight R. BREIDEGAM, individually, I. J. Luman, individually, and Federal Battery & Cable Mfg. Co., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
    No. 61-422.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
    March 1, 1962.
    Rehearing Denied March 19, 1962.
    Agronow & Fensholt, Miami, for appellant.
    Irvmg- Steinhardt, Miami, for appellees.
    Before PEARSON, TILLMAN, C. J., and HORTON and HENDRY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff s complaint alleging a conspiracy was dismissed and he appealed. The question presented is whether it stated a cause of action for civil conspiracy. We hold that it did not because the allegations purporting to state a cause of action in conspiracy must be clear, positive and specific. Gair v. Lockhart, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 826.

The complaint before us sought to imply a conspiracy from the discharge of the plaintiff who was employed for an indefinite term. Such a discharge is not prima facie illegal. Hope v. National Airlines, Fla.App.1957, 99 So.2d 244.

Affirmed.