From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blum v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 2, 1982
409 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

No. 80-2208.

February 2, 1982.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, William A. Herin, J.

Lane, Mitchell Harris and David R. Canning, Miami, for appellant.

Smathers Thompson and G. Morton Good, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.


On the evidence presented, the trial court properly found that, at the time of the disappearance of the vessel, there was no contract of bailment because there was no completed delivery of possession, custody, or control. Florida Small Business Corporation v. Miami Shipyards Corporation, 175 So.2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1965); Stegemann v. Miami Beach Boat Slips, Inc., 213 F.2d 561, 565 (5th Cir. 1954); cf., Empire Tool Company v. Wells, 227 So.2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Blum v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Feb 2, 1982
409 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Blum v. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co.

Case Details

Full title:MARVIN BLUM FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Feb 2, 1982

Citations

409 So. 2d 192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

Citing Cases

Puritan Ins. Co v. Butler Aviation-Palm Beach

On appeal Butler argues that the district court erred in holding that a bailment existed, and alternatively…

Matter of International Gold Bullion Exchange, Inc.

In addressing the Affirmative Defense of bailment, a contract for bailment requires that there be an mutual…