Summary
In Anker v. Dobbs, 57 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1952), the Florida Supreme Court refused to find liability under similar circumstances.
Summary of this case from Restaurant Associates, Etc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.Opinion
March 7, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, George E. Holt, J.
Nathanson, Oka Spaet, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Harold Shapiro, Miami Beach, for appellees.
In December 1950, plaintiff, appellant, filed his bill of complaint in the Circuit Court alleging that he was the holder of an exclusive franchise for the distribution of Babyhood-Wonda-chairs and other Babyhood articles for the State of Florida and certain counties in Alabama. The bill further alleged that defendant-appellees were employees of plaintiff and while thus employed they knowingly undertook to and did enter into a contract with and secured a franchise from Babyhood Industries, Inc., for the same territory as that held by plaintiff. Defendants answered the bill of complaint wherein they admitted most of the material allegations thereof but alleged that they made no agreement with Babyhood Industries, Inc., until they had canceled their franchise with the plaintiff. A Master was appointed, evidence was taken and on final hearing the chancellor ratified the Master's report and dismissed the bill of complaint. This appeal is from the final decree.
Appellant contends that the point for determination is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief from appellees, his employees who during their employment sought and secured the identical franchise held by the plaintiff with Babyhood Industries, Inc.
Appellant contends that this question should have an affirmative answer. He relies on Connelly v. Special Road Bridge District No. 5 et al., 99 Fla. 456, 126 So. 794, 71 A.L.R. 923; Singletary v. Mann et al., 157 Fla. 37, 24 So.2d 718, 166 A.L.R. 904, to support his contention. We have examined these cases carefully and we think they are materially different from the case at bar. In the Connelly case an employee of long standing secretly negotiated with a third party and made a contract with him when he knew that his employer was negotiating for the same contract. The Singletary case and Byrne v. Barrett, 268 N.Y. 199, 197 N.E. 217, 100 A.L.R. 680, also relied on by appellant, are equally wide the mark.
An examination of the evidence discloses (1) that the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proving that defendants induced the cancellation of plaintiff's franchise, (2) that defendants had been in the employ of plaintiff but a short time and his franchise was in jeopardy, (3) defendants investigated the status of plaintiff's franchise and were told that it was about to be canceled because his services were not satisfactory, (4) that Babyhood Industries had reserved the right to cancel its franchise with plaintiff at any time, (5) defendants were invited by Babyhood Industries, Inc., to negotiate with them for a franchise, (6) plaintiff's franchise was canceled and it was not shown that defendants had any part in securing its cancellation.
The evidence fails to show that defendants contributed in any way to the cancellation of plaintiff's franchise. The Master found that defendants made no effort to secure a franchise till they found that the plaintiff's franchise was in danger of being taken from him. He also found that defendants were not candid with and loyal to the plaintiff but he found plaintiff failed to prove the material allegations of his bill of complaint and being so, there was no ground for equitable relief. There must be some basis for equitable relief before it can be granted and a search of the record reveals none in this case against appellees.
We have examined the record and we find no reason to reverse the chancellor so his judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.