HARRY E. WESTBURY AND RUTH RODEHEAVER THOMAS, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HOMER A. RODEHEAVER, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
ALVIN C. CHACE, APPELLEE
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 sued defendants for recovery of a broker's commission. The jury found in favor of the broker, and the defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the complaint, and the verdict amount. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
The trial court properly admitted the complaint and sufficient evidence supported the jury verdict under the judge's instructions. The verdict amount was not reversible error. The judgment in favor of the broker for the broker's commission was affirmed.
“The jury heard conflicting testimony, apparently resolved the conflicts therein in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a verdict in his favor under instructions from the trial judge not here objected to by the defendants.”
Establishes that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence and proper jury instructions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA real estate broker (Chace) filed suit against Westbury and Thomas (as executrix of Rodeheaver's estate) to recover a broker's commission. The jury h…
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 Broker'S Commission cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal attacks the propriety of a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, a real estate broker, entered in a suit' filed by him against the defendant-appellants to recover a broker’s commission.
The jury heard conflicting testimony, apparently resolved the conflicts, therein in favor of the plaintiff, and entered a verdict in his favor under instructions from the trial judge not here objected to by the defendants. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to support the verdict in his favor under such instructions. Cf. Pensacola Finance Co. v. Simpson, 1921, 82 Fla. 368, 90 So. 381. Accordingly, the defendants’ contention that they are entitled to a new trial because of the insufficiency of the evidence cannot be sustained.
The defendants have also assigned as error the trial judge’s action in overruling their first defense directed to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s compláint to state a cause of action. The allegations of the first and second counts were clearly sufficient to state a cause of action. See Parrish v. Tyre, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 250; Pensacola Finance Co. v. Simpson, supra, 90 So. 381. The third count is not vulnerable to the attack. made upon it by the defendants in their reply brief, see Moore v. Boyd, Fla.1952, 62 So. 2d 427, and no argument directed to this count was made in their original brief. Thus, this assignment of error cannot be sustained.
The assignment of error relating to the amount of the verdict has been considered and no reversible error has been found.
For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
THOMAS, Acting Chief Justice, and ROBERTS, DREW, THORNAL and O’CONNELL, ]]., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Boyd, 62 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1952)
- Pensacola Fin. Co. v. Simpson, 82 Fla. 368 (Fla. 1921)