H. P. LANGFORD, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
KING LUMBER & MANUFACTURING CO., A CORPORATION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Langford sued King Lumber & Manufacturing Co. for commission on procuring a real estate purchaser. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff's testimony. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the evidence presented genuine issues of fact regarding the defendant's obligation to pay the full commission and the effect of subsequent modifications involving a third party.
The court held that the evidence does not show as a matter of law that the defendant is obligated to pay McCoy (a non-party) any portion of the commission or that the amount claimed is contingent on payment by the purchaser; therefore, a directed verdict for the defendant was improper and the case should proceed to a jury.
“the subsequent, transactions between the defendant's representatives and Langford and one McCoy, as disclosed by testimony and by a written instrument, show that the defendant was requested by Langford to pay to McCoy who was pres'ent, "half of the commission that was due,"”
Establishes the factual basis showing modification of the original agreement through Langford's own request to split the commission with McCoy
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLangford claimed an agreement with King Lumber to pay him a commission for procuring a purchaser for real estate at a stated price per acre. After pro…
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 Commission Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
This writ of error was taken to a judgment rendered on a directed verdict for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s testimony.
The action was on an agreement to pay commissions for procuring a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy real estate at a stated price per acre on specified terms.
Assuming that the evidence tends to show an agreement by the defendant to pay the entire commission to the plaintiff, Langford, upon producing a purchaser as agreed, the 'subsequent, transactions between the defendant’s representatives and Langford and one McCoy, as disclosed by testimony and by a written instrument, show that the defendant was requested by Langford to pay to McCoy who was pres'ent, “half of the commission that was due,” and *464that the defendant' acted on the request by them to each one-half of a part of the amount due and by later sending to Langford a written instrument which was endorsed by Langford:
“To H. P. Langford and J. W. McCoy:
“We hereby acknowledge that there is a balance due of $11,029.96 as commission on the sale of a tract of land which we own South of Kinsey to the G. M. & R. J. Development Co., which commission we hereby agree to pay. when the G. M. & R. J. Development Co. makes full payment of the first maturing note which they gave to us as the balance of purchase price thereon with interest, and when same is paid we agree to allow on said commission the same rate of interest as the notes of the G. M. & R. J. Development Co. bears.
“King Lumber ■& Mfg. Company, “By H. T. Davis,
“Sec. and Gen. Mgr.
“Arcadia, Florida,
“October 5, 1925.
“Arcadia, Florida, “October 30, 1925.
“For value received I hereby assign to the DeSoto National Bank of Arcadia my share of the above commission.
“H. P.. Langford."
The evidence does not show, as' a matter of law, that the defendant is obligated to pay to McCoy, who is not a party to the action, a part of the commission sued for or that the amount claimed is to be paid upon the contingency of *465a payment by the purchaser to the defendant, therefore a verdict for the defendant should not have been directed.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Baskin, 111 Fla. 667 (Fla. 1933)…lleged to be held by relator. The judgment appealed from should be reversed on the authority of the following cases decided by this Court since the judgment in the lower court was rendered on March 14, 1932. City of Palmetto v. Klemm, 108 Fla. 455, 146 Sou. Rep. 588; State v. Mitchell, 108 Fla. 233, 146 Sou. Rep. 207; Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 Sou. Rep. 858. In the case of State v. Mitchell, supra, this Court distinguished the previous decisions in State ex rel. East Side Bank v. Holloway, 105 Fla. 6…
-
Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 123 Fla. 855 (Fla. 1935)…tions thereto all relating to the interest of J. W. McCoy in the transaction. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, to which this writ of error was prosecuted. This is the second appearance of this case here, 108 Fla. 463, 146 So. 588. The former writ of error was to a directed verdict for the defendant at the close of plaintiff’s testimony. It is first contended that the judgment below should be reversed because of irregular conduct of one of the jury [*858] men after retiring…
-
Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 132 Fla. 143 (Fla. 1937)…onvey the land to the seller, which was done. The plaintiff in error was plaintiff below. This controversy has once before been reviewed by this Court and a judgment for defendant on directed verdict reversed. See Langford v. King Lumbr & Mfg. Co., 108 Fla. 463, 146 Sou. Rep. 588. Upon remand and retrial, a verdict by a jury was rendered in defendant’s favor. Upon an earlier consideration thereof by this Court, the judgment entered thereon was affirmed. See: Langford v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 123 Fla. 855…1 / 2