Harris v. McKay
This text of 176 So. 2d 572 (Harris v. McKay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Milton J. HARRIS and William H. Fishman, Appellants,
v.
Frank D. McKAY, William Miller, Royal American Inc., and Bal Harbour Enterprises, Inc., Appellees.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
M.H. Rosenhouse, Miami, for appellants.
Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Richard S. Banick, Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin and Robert H. Givens, Jr., Miami, for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
By this appeal we are requested to review summary judgments on behalf of the appellees, who were defendants in a suit to collect a real estate brokerage commission.
We affirm the action of the trial judge. Where one cooperating broker is under a disability to recover a commission because of being non-registered, this infirmity affects the validity of the entire contract and no recovery should be permitted, notwithstanding the fact that the broker, validly registered, may not have known of the disability of his cooperating broker. See: Campbell v. Romfh Bros., Inc., Fla.App. 1961, 132 So.2d 466; Haas v. Greenwald, 196 Cal. 236, 237 P. 38, 59 A.L.R. 1493; Brandenburger & Marx, Inc. v. Heimberg, Mun.Ct., 34 N.Y.S.2d 935; Payne v. Volkman, 183 Wis. 412, 198 N.W. 438.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
176 So. 2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-mckay-fladistctapp-1965.