HARRY F. FROMME & COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
BOARDMAN-FRAZEE REALTY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 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 insurance commissions, finding that the lower court erred by excluding a plea related to compliance with licensing statutes for insurance agents.
The court held that the trial court erred in excluding the plea. The judgment was reversed because the plaintiff was awarded commissions on policies issued after the effective date of the new licensing statute, and the plea regarding compliance with this statute should have been considered.
“in view of the provisions of Chapter 10153 Acts 1925, Sections 6208-12 Compiled General Laws 1927, relating to qualification and licensing of insurance agents, there is error in the judgment in that three items of commissions allowed are for policies issued after October 1, 1925, the effective date of Chapter 10153, and a plea that the statute had not been complied with in procuring a license was excluded on demurrer”
This quote explains the basis for the court's finding of error in the lower court's judgment.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved a dispute over insurance commissions. The plaintiff sought to recover commissions, and the defendant filed a plea asserting non-comp…
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 Recovery Of Commissions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*152] Per Curiam.
This cause involving the recovery of commissions on insurance policies, having heretofore been submitted to the court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected and the court being now advised of it’s judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that in view of the provisions of Chapter 10153 Acts 1925, Sections 6208-12 Compiled General Laws 1927, relating to qualification and licensing of insurance agents, there is error in the judgment in that three items of commissions allowed are for policies issued after October 1, 1925, the effective date of Chapter 10153, and a plea that the statute had not been complied with in procuring a license was excluded on demurrer; therefore the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for appropriate proceedings. See Sec. 4640 Comp. Gen. Laws 1927. See also Garzo v. Brophy Cons. Co. 66 Fla. 607, 64 So. R. 234.
Reversed.
Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Strum, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur,
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hardaway v. George R. Fuller Co., 103 Fla. 901 (Fla. 1931)…is no error in the said judgment; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and adjudged by the Court' that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be and the same is [*902] hereby affirmed on the authority of Fromme & Co. v. Boardman Frazee Realty Co., 98 Fla. 151, 123 So. 570. Affirmed. Whitfield, P.J., and Terrell and Davis, J.J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Garzo v. J. H. Brophy Constr. Co., 66 Fla. 607 (Fla. 1914)