Legal Opinion · Dissent

The Richter Jewelry Co. v. Schweinert

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided December 19, 1935Published

1Dissent

It is not disputed that J.A. Richter, who charged and was paid the commission, was the Secretary of, and a stockholder in, the lender corporation, the Richter Jewelry Co., Inc. He alone acted for the corporation in making this loan. The chancellor in his decree expressly found that, "J.A. Richter, the Secretary of the defendant corporation, was acting solely as the agent of the defendant, Richter Jewelry Co., Inc., in negotiating and consummating the loan complained of." Indeed, the evidence shows that Richter was not only a stockholder and officer, but also that he was in active control and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Wilson v. ConnerSupreme Court of Florida · 1932
  2. Graham v. FittsSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
  3. Tucker v. FoutsSupreme Court of Florida · 1917
  4. Wicker v. Trust Co. of Fla.Supreme Court of Florida · 1933
  5. Hopkins v. OttoSupreme Court of Florida · 1935

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API