JOSEPH CAMERON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
FRANK J. POWERS, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment awarding commissions to a real estate broker, finding that the trial court improperly excluded evidence crucial to the defendant's defense.
Yes, the trial court erred by excluding evidence that another agency was the procuring cause of the sale, as this was a material part of the defense.
“A defense was sought to be interposed based upon the theory that another agency to whom a commission was paid, was the actual procuring cause of the sale, but •evidence looking to this defense was erroneously excluded.”
Establishes the nature of the excluded defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePowers sued Cameron for commissions on a land sale and obtained a judgment. Cameron attempted to present a defense arguing that another agency was the…
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 Action For Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
[*109] Cockrell, J.
— Powers recovered judgment for commissions on the sale of certain lands near Sanford, Florida, owned by Cameron.
There is a sharp conflict of testimony as to whether Cameron made the contract with Powers for the commissions or knew that Powers claimed to be acting for him in the sale.
A defense was sought to be interposed based upon the theory that another agency to whom a commission was paid, was the actual procuring cause of the sale, but •evidence looking to this defense was erroneously excluded. 'The court seems to have proceeded upon the idea that the •defense was limited to a direct contradiction of the evidence for the plaintiff, and would not admit evidence of what was done by the other agency to' bring about the sale.
The broker here was not to be paid for introducing a purchaser, but for bringing about the sale, and the question who effected the sale should have been gone into fully. Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 South. Rep. 1011.
Whitfield, C. J., and Taylor, Shackleford and Hooker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mellet v. Henry, 108 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…nder these facts it cannot be held that the plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale. They rely for reversal upon Salter v. Knowles, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 138; McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So. 2d 781, and Cameron v. Powers, 63 Fla. 108, 57 So. 888. In Salter v. Knowles, supra [97 So. 2d 139] the District Court of Appeal, Second District, sustained the finding of a trial judge sitting without jury that, a real estate agent was not the procuring cause of a sale. The Court held: “T…
-
Weida v. Bacon, 102 Fla. 628 (Fla. 1931)…ation until he effects a sale or procures from his customer a binding contract of purchase within the terms of his authority. Wiggins v. Wilson, 55 Fla. 346, 45 South. Rep. 1011; Elliott v. Gamble, 77 Fla. 798, 82 South. Rep. 253; Cameron v. Powers, 63 Fla. 108, 57 South. Rep. 888; Sullivan v. Brown, 67 Fla. 133, 64 South Rep. 455. The declaration declares upon two employments to sell the same property. One in August, 1924, and the other in February, 1925. In neither case is it alleged that a customer -wa…
Authorities Cited
- Wiggins v. Solon G. Wilson and Clarence A. Boswell, 55 Fla. 346 (Fla. 1908)