One Hour Valet of Am., Inc. v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
One Hour Valet of Am., Inc. v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sheldon Greene & Associates v. Rosinda Inv. (fladistctapp, 1985-08-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheldon Greene & Associates v. Rosinda Inv.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Co., 161 So.2d 699, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (extent of agent's authority is an issue of fact); One Hour Valet of Am., Inc., v. Keck, 157 So.2d 83, 83 (Fla.2d DCA 1963) (same; "[trial court's] findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous."). [5] See, e.g., Shuler v. Allen, 76 So.2d 879, 882-83 (Fla. 1955); Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 308 , 19 So.2d 876, 878 (1944); Fearick v. Smugglers Cove, Inc., 379 So.2d 400, 403 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Bermil Corp. v. Sawyer, 353 So.2d 579, 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); First Realty Corp. of Boca Raton v. Standard Steel Treating Co., 268 So.2d 410, 413 …
discussed Cited "see" Paneson v. Zubillaga
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See One Hour Valet of America, Inc. v. Keck, 157 So.2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (whether agent’s acts were ratified by principal is determinable as question of fact); Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Peninger, 603 So.2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (same).
discussed Cited "see" American Lease Plans, Inc. v. Silver Sand Co. of Leesburg
5th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc., 499 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1122 , 95 S.Ct. 805 , 42 L.Ed.2d 821 (1975) (citing One Hour Valet of America v. Keck, 157 So.2d 83 (Fla. D.Ct.App. 1963)); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116 , 52 So. 801 , 802 (1910).
discussed Cited "see" ca3 1981
3rd Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudak v. Economic Research Analysts, Inc., 499 F.2d 996, 1002 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1122 , 95 S.Ct. 805 , 42 L.Ed.2d 821 (1975) (citing One Hour Valet of America v. Keck, 157 So.2d 83 (Fla. D.Ct.App. 1963)); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116 , 52 So. 801 , 802 (1910).
ONE HOUR VALET OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERMAN KECK, JR., AND C.C. BATES, APPELLEES.
3600.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 16, 1963.
157 So. 2d 83
Per Curiam.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Eugene C. Heiman of Myers, Heiman, Kaplan & Catsman, Miami, for appellant.

John W. Douglass and Thomas Thatcher, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for wrongful conversion. Appellant, One Hour Valet of America, Inc., hereinafter called "O H V A", was one of two defendants below. The remaining defendant, one C.C. Bates, had a default judgment rendered against him and has been named party appellee under Rule 3.11(a) Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Appellee Herman Keck, Jr. was plaintiff below. The case was decided by the court, without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff-appellee and against the defendant-appellant.

Simply stated, plaintiff attempted to enter into a franchise agreement with OHVA for use of a dry cleaning process owned by OHVA. Plaintiff made his check for the down payment payable to appellant's agent, Bates, who is alleged to have had apparent authority to accept the check. Bates absconded with the money and OH VA refused to go through with the franchise and refused to refund the money, hence the suit and judgment against OH VA and consequent appeal to this court.

Although three points were presented on appeal, the controlling point is whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient for the court to find that the agent had apparent or ostensible authority to accept the check; or in the alternative, whether appellant ratified its agent's activities by its own actions.

Whether acts are within the scope of an agent's apparent authority or whether the acts were ratified by the principal are determinable as questions of fact, and the findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Bogue Electric Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, C.A. 5, 269 F.2d 1; Bush Grocery Company v. Conely, 1911, 61 Fla. 131, 55 So. 867; cf. Stiles v. Gordon[*84] Land Co., Fla. 1950, 44 So.2d 417. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no prejudicial error.

Affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C.J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.