R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight System Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight System Inc.

664 So. 2d 44, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12553, 1995 WL 712588

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 6, 1995

DocketNo. 95-1584

StatusPublished

This text of 664 So. 2d 44 (R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight System Inc.) 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.

Bluebook

R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight System Inc., 664 So. 2d 44, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12553, 1995 WL 712588 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

On this, the third appearance of this case before us, see R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight Systems, Inc., 632 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); B.T.I. Freight Systems, Inc. v. R.J. Katz & Co., 614 So.2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), we render the third reversal, this time of a summary judgment granted to the individual appellee who was the sole signator of the brokerage agreements sued upon.

Even though he did not own the property in question, it is obvious that, at the least, there are genuine issues as to whether Do Amaral was liable for the commission as the person who employed the broker, see Bryan v. Justice, 247 So.2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert, denied, 250 So.2d 898 (Fla.1971); Keyes Co. v. Moscarella, 223 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); 7 Fla.Jur.2d Brokers § 80 (1978), as the agent for an undisclosed principal, the corporation which was the actual owner, see Humphrey v. Bussey, 99 Fla. 1249, 128 So. 841 (1930); Hohauser v. Schor, 101 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), or both.

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

On this, the third appearance of this case before us, see R.J. Katz & Co. v. B.T.I. Freight Systems, Inc., 632 So.2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); B.T.I. Freight Systems, Inc. v. R.J. Katz & Co., 614 So.2d 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), we render the third reversal, this time of a summary judgment granted to the individual appellee who was the sole signator of the brokerage agreements sued upon.

Even though he did not own the property in question, it is obvious that, at the least, there are genuine issues as to whether Do Amaral was liable for the commission as the person who employed the broker, see Bryan v. Justice, 247 So.2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert, denied, 250 So.2d 898 (Fla.1971); Keyes Co. v. Moscarella, 223 So.2d 83 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); 7 Fla.Jur.2d Brokers § 80 (1978), as the agent for an undisclosed principal, the corporation which was the actual owner, see Humphrey v. Bussey, 99 Fla. 1249, 128 So. 841 (1930); Hohauser v. Schor, 101 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958), or both.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

664 So. 2d 44, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12553, 1995 WL 712588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rj-katz-co-v-bti-freight-system-inc-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack