Opinion
February 22, 1952. Rehearing Denied March 27, 1952.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, C.E. Chillingworth, J.
Wideman, Caldwell, Pacetti Robinson, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Warwick, Paul Warwick and Paty Paty, all of West Palm Beach, for appellees.
In this case the parties waived a trial by jury and the case was heard by the Circuit Judge.
The appellant sued the appellees claiming that appellees had agreed to pay him a reasonable compensation for his services in purchasing all of the stock of a corporation. The appellees admitted the employment of the appellant and that the appellant had performed the services by securing the stock for them, but denied that they had agreed to pay the appellant a reasonable compensation, and alleged that they had agreed to pay appellant $10,000 for his services. The appellees also claimed certain credits which they had paid to the appellant.
The question submitted to, and to be determined by, the Circuit Judge, without a jury, was whether or not appellees agreed to pay the appellant a reasonable compensation, or whether they agreed to pay him $10,000.
A great many witnesses were heard by the Circuit Judge and considerable documentary evidence was received and considered by him. There was no complaint or error assigned with reference to admissibility of the testimony.
In the final judgment the Circuit Judge reviewed the testimony offered before him and stated:
"My conclusion is that plaintiff is mistaken as to his recollection of the brokerage contract with Mortimer Sachs.
"The Court therefore finds that plaintiff has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of any contract other than to pay $10,000.00 as a brokerage for the services of plaintiff. The payment of $1500.00, as well as the payment of $1190.00 were on account of these services."
The Circuit Judge thereupon entered judgment for the sum of $10,000 less certain payments which had been made on account, leaving a balance due on said judgment of $7,748.60.
It is firmly established in this Court that the findings of fact of a Circuit Judge in a case like this, tried without a jury, are entitled to the same weight on appeal as the verdict of a jury. See Jernigan v. Harrison, 136 Fla. 320, 186 So. 511, and Section 54.10 F.S.A.
It is also well settled that this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of a jury where there is conflicting evidence such as existed in this case.
The trial Judge in this case heard the evidence to the same extent that a jury would hear the evidence. He saw the witnesses and heard them. He was a judge of their bias, prejudice and interest in the matter. He observed their manner of testifying and was a sole judge of the credibility of such witnesses. The evidence in this case fully justifies the finding that the plaintiff in the court below had failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of any contract as alleged, and that the preponderance of the evidence established the existence of the contract to pay the specific sum of $10,000 as claimed by the appellees.
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.