Case Title: Hanes v. Watkins

Citation: 63 So. 2d 625

Docket Number: 

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1953-03-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
63 So. 2d 625 (1953)
HANES
v.
WATKINS et al.

Supreme Court of Florida, Division B.
March 13, 1953.
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1953.
Claude L. Gray and Dorothea Watson, Orlando, for appellant.
H.M. Voorhis and Raymer F. Maguire, Jr. (of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells), Orlando, for appellees.
DREW, Justice.
June 1, 1944, L.G. Watkins, one of the defendants below (appellee here), and D.H. Hanes, plaintiff below (appellant here), entered into the following contract:
June 10, 1944, the stockholders of Abernathy Paint Co., Inc., held a stockholders' meeting. The official minutes show the following stockholders present: L.G. Watkins, owner of 48 shares; D.H. Hanes, owner of 1 share and William N. Ellis, owner of 1 share. At this meeting Watkins, Hanes and Ellis were elected directors. On the same day the directors met and elected Hanes President, Watkins Vice-President and Treasurer, and Ellis Secretary.
January 2, 1945, the same stockholders re-elected the same Board of Directors, and on the same date the Directors met, re-elected the same officers and fixed the salaries of Hanes at $5,100 and Watkins at $1,500 and authorized such officers to incur expenses for the benefit of the company.
The official minutes show the stockholders and directors met on August 17, 1946, and on September 13, 1947, at which meetings routine business was transacted. All of these meetings, except the meeting of September 13, 1947, were participated in by *627 Hanes and the record of the minutes of all of them, including the meeting of September 13, 1947, were signed by Hanes.
During the years from the date of the purchase of said business until the complaint was filed herein, the business flourished. The name was changed to "Hanes Paint Store" (apparently at Watkins' suggestion). The original cost of the stock was soon retired out of earnings, salaries were increased, dividends paid, a new store location was purchased and the business accumulated a large surplus.
May 25, 1951, Hanes filed his complaint against L.G. Watkins and D.H. Hanes, individually, and L.G. Watkins and D.H. Hanes, a co-partnership trading and doing business under the firm name and style of Hanes Paint Store, and Abernathy Paint Company, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. In the complaint Hanes prayed for a declaration of his rights under the original contract hereinabove set forth and alleged amendments thereto, as well as his rights in certain real estate purchased in the name of the corporation, and further that the court "dissolve the partnership relation now existing between him and the said L.G. Watkins and dissolve the corporation of Abernathy Paint Co., Inc., and wind up and settle its affairs and distribute its assets among those lawfully entitled to receive the same." Hanes also prayed for injunctive relief against interference with the business by Watkins, or, in the alternative, the appointment of a receiver and for a partition of the real estate above mentioned. A lis pendens was filed at the same time the complaint was filed.
The defendants denied that there ever was a partnership, set forth that Watkins owned 51% of the stock (a controlling interest); that while there was some dissension among the stockholders, the corporation was actively engaged in business, capable of carrying out its corporate functions, could solve its own internal affairs and that the courts were not authorized under such circumstances to dissolve it.
After the issues were made up, extensive testimony was taken. The hearings extended over a long period of time and the evidence consisted of over 440 pages and about fifty exhibits. Boiled down to its essence, two questions were involved in the lower court and two questions are involved in this appeal. The first is whether the relationship between Watkins and Hanes was that of a partnership, joint venture or as stockholders in a corporation; the second is, if the relationship is that of stockholders, should the court, under the evidence, dissolve the corporation and distribute its assets.
The first question is purely a factual one. The lower Court  under our system of jurisprudence the trier of the facts  found:
Not only is there credible competent evidence to support these findings but the evidence is so overwhelming that no other possible conclusion could be reached. That we may not disturb the lower court's findings under such circumstances is elemental.
As to the second  and last question raised, the lower court said:
We hold the Court to be correct in his ruling on this point, not only under the authority of the cited case, Tampa Water Works Co. v. Wood, 97 Fla. 493, 121 So. 789, but also under Mills Development Corporation v. Shipp & Head, Inc., 126 Fla. 490, 171 So. 533, 534; News-Journal Corporation v. Gore, 147 Fla. 217, 2 So. 2d 741; Finn Bondholders, Inc., v. Dukes, 157 Fla. 642, 26 So. 2d 802.
For the reasons pointed out the decree of the lower court is hereby
Affirmed.
HOBSON, C.J., and THOMAS and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.