CUMBERLAND SAVINGS & TRUST COMPANY, AS EXECUTOR OF R. B. LUTTERLOH, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
W. W. MCGRIFF, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A real estate broker brought suit against a property owner for a five percent commission on the sale of real estate. The trial court found for the broker, awarding $375 and interest, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the broker was entitled to his commission because he procured the purchaser by introducing the buyer to the owner and keeping the buyer interested in the property.
McGriff was entitled to his commission because he procured the purchaser by introducing McDaniel to Lutterloh and continuing to keep McDaniel interested in the property, even though the final sale was negotiated by Herbert Lutterloh and included a co-purchaser not introduced by McGriff.
“It is admitted that McGriff introduced McDaniel to R. B. Lutterloh as a prospective purchaser and that though the first negotiations failed, McGriff continued to keep McDaniel interested in the property and finally McDaniel with Phillips purchased the property.”
Establishes the factual basis for finding McGriff procured the purchaser despite the failed initial negotiations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLutterloh employed McGriff as a broker to sell real property for a five percent commission. McGriff introduced J. R. McDaniel to Lutterloh as a prospe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ready, Willing, And Able Purchaser cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam
W. W. McGriff brought an action against R. B. Lutterloh for compensation for procuring a purchaser of real estate. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. Lutterloh ' died and the Trust Company as his executor was made a party plaintiff in error here.
A jury being waived, the case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts in effect that Lutterloh employed McGriff to procure a purchaser for certain real property at a price satisfactory to Lutterloh for a commission of five per cent. The price was at first fixed at $15,000.00 and afterwards reduced. Some time later McGriff began negotiations with J. R. McDaniel for the sale of the property and introduced McDaniel to Lutterloh, who in discussing the matter stated a price of $9000.00, but finally agreed to accept $8,000.00, whereupon Lutterloh gave McDaniel an option to purchase at $8,000.00, within ten days. The option was canceled. Subsequently McGriff continued to discuss the matter with McDaniel from time to time, as also did Lutterloh. Later Herbert Lutterloh, a brother of R. B. Lutterloh discussed the matter with McDaniel and finally the sale was made by Herbert Lutterloh to McDaniel and Phillips for $7,500.00, but McGriff took no part in the negotiations. The court found for the plaintiff and gave judgment for $375.00 and interest.
It is considered that the finding is contrary to law and to the evidence, the argument being that McGriff did not procure a purchaser ready, willing and able to buy upon terms satisfactory to the owner, and that as Herbert Lutterloh made the sale to McDaniel and Phillips when there was no definite proposition to purchase, pending between R. B. Lutterloh and McDaniel, and McGriff did not interest Phillips who became a purchaser with McDaniel, Mc-Griff had not procured a purchaser so as to be entitled to the compensation claimed.
It is admitted that McGriff introduced McDaniel to R. B. Lutterloh as a prospective purchaser and that though the first negotiations failed, McGriff continued to keep McDaniel interested in the property and finally McDaniel with Phillips purchased the property.
This being so McGriff was entitled to his commissions, and there is evidence to support the finding in accordance with 'law. See Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla., 346, 45 South. Rep., 1011.
The judgment is affirmed.
Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford and Cockrell, J. J., concur;
Taylor, Hocker and Cockrell, J. J., concur in the opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malever v. Livingston, 95 Fla. 272 (Fla. 1928)…ive effect of this general rule. That this is the true meaning of the holding and opinion in Wiggins v. Wilson, supra., is indicated by our own subsequent cases. See Varn v. Pelot, 55 Fla. 357, 45 So. 1015; Cumberland Saving & Trust Co. v. McGriff, 61 Fla. 159, 54 So. 265; Elliott v. Gamble, 77 Fla. 798, 82 So. 253; Squires v. Kilgore, 111 So. 113, 92 Fla. 1001. The case of Rhode v. Gallat, 70 Fla. 536, 70 So. 471, might be read in this connection. This construction is also borne out by the case of Ormsby…
-
Smith v. Shackleford, 92 Fla. 731 (Fla. 1926)…n — one arising purely between the principal and his agent — this Court held that there is a distinction between an employment “to find or procure a purchaser” and an employment to “effect a sale.” See also Cumberland Savings & Trust Co. v. McGriff, 61 Fla. 159; 54 South. Rep. 265; Carter v. Owens, 58 Fla. 204; 50 South. Rep. 641; Elliott v. Gamble, 77 Fla. 798; 82 South. Rep. 253; Blue v. Staten, 84 Fla. 274; 93 South. Rep. 686; Sullivan v. Brown, 67 Fla. 133, 64 South. Rep. 455; Pensacola Finance Co. v.…
-
Pensacola Fin. Co. v. Simpson, 82 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1921)…breaking off the negotiations, withdrawing the offer, to eliminate the plaintiff, and then avail itself of the activities of the plaintiff by selling to Russell at the original price proposed. The case of Cumberland Savings & Trust Co. v. McGriff, 61 Fla. 159, 54 South. Rep. 265, is complete authority for the verdict in this case. McGriff found the prospective purchaser, McDaniel, brought him and Lutterloh together, a price was fixe'd and rejected by McDaniel, another price was named by Lutterloh, $1,000…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wiggins v. Solon G. Wilson and Clarence A. Boswell, 55 Fla. 346 (Fla. 1908)