The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1889-01-15
HRAD-SOTEs TO DECISIONS OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA.


George X Foster ct al Appellants. ys- ID. u
Amber Appellee-DaTa county.
MAXWELL. c. -.
l. In case where The bin seeks an account
on alleged liability OF the defendant, and Inc
court gives decree for The p4'htf', WIFE Qi
rections 10 the master appointed TO take me
account which are unsatisfactory 10 me plain
tiffs, and from which they take an appeal, this
court will consider the whole case, and reverse
the decree against the defendant, il found TO De
erroneous in charging him with any liability
g Where the sworn answer TO a bill denies
the allegations essential 10 sustain the case OF
the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs will fail II they 90
not overcome the answer by the evidence OF TWO
Witnesses. or of one witness and sufhccni cor
roboraing circumstances. This case Tor the
plaintiffs Is founded on an alleged trust accepted
by the defendant on a transfer OF their STOCK I'D
the Jacksonville and St Augustine Railroad
Company 10 him, which trust he denies In hls
sworn answer, claiming that the transfer vas
under an absolute sale OF the stock 10 bltn. ana
the denial Of the answer not being overcome, ID
the opinion Of this court, by the evidence re-
suired Ifld that the decree charging the de-
PENDANT with liability under the alleged trust Is
erroneous
g. Authority 20 third parties 10 transfer stock.
expressing that il was given on receipt OF luli
consideration If coupled with a secret trust,
does not carry the trust 70 the party 10 whom
they sell and transfer the stock, unless kno"i-
edge Of such trust is brought home 10 him. ne
breach Of trust If any, is in such case chargea-
Bile to The parties having au' hori'y 10 transfer.
4. When stock is offered for sale TO an officer
of COMPANY by one holding written authority
ofthe character above indicated, there Is no rule
of law which requires him 10 enquire the pur-
pose of the sale. He would only Be put upon
enquiry when be has know ledge OF such facts as
would lead al honest nan, using ordinary eau
ton, to make further enquiries, and be taken
to have notice Of facts about which enquiry
should be made, when with such Knowledge he
does not make the enquiry, bat avoids making it.
g. If one gives 10 another such evidence OF
right 10 sell his property as, according tpcom-
mon understanding accompanies authority OF
disposal, he loses the right Of retaining the
property if disposed Of under that authority 10
an honest purchaser for q valuable consideration
without notice Of any adverse Clam. Ii trust
goes with The authority such purchaser would
not be held as taking the property subject TO the
trust.
6. The rule that a purchaser Of property from
a ihrd party encumbered with trust cannot
hold against the true owner il the consideration
of the purchase * only al anteceGent debt, does
not apply where there is further consideration
in the surrender Of a valuable security for the
debt.
Decree reversed and bill dismissed
H. Bisbee, for Appellants; Fleming & Daniel,
for Appellee.
NH Sullivan, Appellant We. Louis Boley,
Appellee-Escamba county,
MITCHELL, j
B. and s. traded buggies, and it was agreed
that s. should take BIS new buggy at Two hun
ared and fifty dollars one hundred dollars Of
which to be paid by 5 u B. in SIS old buggy,
and the balance or difference between the bug;
gies to be paid in money. 5 took possession 81
and held the new buggy, but never delivered or
offered TO deliver the old buggy 10 B nor did
s. pay or offer to pay B. for the new buggy
Held. that b., the plaintiff, could recover the
value Of the new buggy ON the count Of the dec
laratiOn for goods sold and delivered by the
plaintiff 10 defendant at his request.
g. B., the plaintiff, sold lumber to s, the de.
iendan, at plaintiffs mill, which shipped To
the defendant on The L. & " K r. A, the trial
waybls Of said company were admitted 10 evil
dence which showed the meiyht Of lumber ship
ped by plaintiff TO defendant on different dates,
and the evidence showed that the waybills
were made out and sent by the company in the
due course Of their business, and that the de-
tendant paid the freight on the lumber SO sent
by said waybills. This was not error.
3. The court charged the jury that if they
found from The evidence that plaintiff offered 10
sell defendant new buggy tor two hundred
and fifty dollars, or To exchange bugges with
defendant, the defendant 10 pay one hun
dred and fifty dollars between the buggies, and
defendant, after the proposition possessed him
self OF plaintiffs new buggy without paying him
one hundred and fifty dollars, and without de-
livering his old buggy TO plaintiff, or Offering to
deliver it AT he time he possessed himself Of the
plalntlffs new buggy, or within reasonable
time thereafter, then he would be liable for the
value OF the SAID buggy fixed by the plaintiff
when he made the offer Of sale or exchange
HeH. correct.
Affirmed.
J. G. Avery, for Appellant; John Eagan f
r. M.YweII fnr Annetlcp