JOHN C. STOWERS, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
WM. M. 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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for a plaintiff who sued for a real estate commission, finding that the evidence presented did not sufficiently prove he procured a buyer for the property.
No, the evidence presented by the plaintiff was not sufficiently definite to establish that he procured a purchaser for the property as required to earn the commission.
“The evidence for the plaintiff below does not show with any degree of definiteness that he found or procured a purchaser for the property, while the evidence for the defendant below is positive, definite and preponderating that the plaintiff did not find the purchaser.”
This quote highlights the court's reasoning for reversing the lower court's decision, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence from the plaintiff.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA plaintiff sued a defendant for $500, alleging the defendant promised to pay this amount for finding a purchaser for property. The plaintiff's eviden…
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
Per Curiam.
McGriff brought assumpsit against Stowers to recover compensation “for procuring and finding a purchaser for * * * property, at no particularly stated price,” “for which services the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff the sum of five hundred dollars.” There was judgment for plaintiff and the defendant took writ of error. The evidence for the plaintiff below does not show with any degree of definiteness that he found or procured a purchaser for the property, while the evidence for the defendant below is positive, definite and preponderating that the plaintiff did not find the purchaser. The letter from the purchaser to the plaintiff dated several months before the promise sued on was made, has no reference to the purchase of property and the testimony for the plaintiff does not connect the letter with the transaction in litigation. The entire evidence indicates that the jury did not give due consideration to the testimony.
The judgment is reversed.
Taylor, C. J., and Shackleford, Cockrell, Whitfield and Ellis, JJ., concur.