Robertson v. Williams

Supreme Court of Florida

Robertson v. Williams

28 So. 2d 114, 158 Fla. 163, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 506

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 28 So. 2d 114 (Robertson v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robertson v. Williams, 28 So. 2d 114, 158 Fla. 163, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 506 (Fla. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

BARNS, Circuit Judge:

By this suit the plaintiffs-respondents by their bill sought to hold the defendants, Phillips, accountable to the plaintiffs for a commission when, allegedly, plaintiffs as real estate brokers had property of C. M. Robertson listed with them and the Phillips’s knowing this bought the property direct from the owner and paid all cash; that plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale, and that the vendor Robertson is a nonresident upon whom personal service cannot be had; that the acts of the Phillips’s and Robertson were to hinder and frustrate the payment of plaintiffs’ claim of a brokerage commission.

For present purposes we will assume" that plaintiffs-respondents had a listing of the property of C. M. Robertson; that Robertson was the owner of the orange grove and Henderson and Williams were real estate brokers; and Dr. P. Phillips and Sons, Inc., bought the property "from Robertson for $200,000.00 and that Dr. P. Phillips acted either for himself or for the corporation in the purchase.

After alleging that the plaintiffs were effective in finding a purchaser for the property so as to make the vendor liable to them for a commission, plaintiffs contend that the purchasers *164 closed the deal direct with the vendor in order to frustrate the payment by the vendor of a commission to the plaintiffs.

The deal was closed and the entire purchase price paid. Defendants Phillips are not shown to be in anywise indebted to the seller or to hold any property belonging to him.

Assuming all the foregoing recitals and contentions to be true and that the vendor is liable for a commission by reason of the purchase, it is our conclusion that the bill is without equity. Plaintiffs’ case, if any, is in law.

Petition for certiorari is granted. The order overruling petitioners’ motion to dismiss the bill is quashed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

BARNS, Circuit Judge:

By this suit the plaintiffs-respondents by their bill sought to hold the defendants, Phillips, accountable to the plaintiffs for a commission when, allegedly, plaintiffs as real estate brokers had property of C. M. Robertson listed with them and the Phillips’s knowing this bought the property direct from the owner and paid all cash; that plaintiffs were the procuring cause of the sale, and that the vendor Robertson is a nonresident upon whom personal service cannot be had; that the acts of the Phillips’s and Robertson were to hinder and frustrate the payment of plaintiffs’ claim of a brokerage commission.

For present purposes we will assume" that plaintiffs-respondents had a listing of the property of C. M. Robertson; that Robertson was the owner of the orange grove and Henderson and Williams were real estate brokers; and Dr. P. Phillips and Sons, Inc., bought the property "from Robertson for $200,000.00 and that Dr. P. Phillips acted either for himself or for the corporation in the purchase.

After alleging that the plaintiffs were effective in finding a purchaser for the property so as to make the vendor liable to them for a commission, plaintiffs contend that the purchasers *164 closed the deal direct with the vendor in order to frustrate the payment by the vendor of a commission to the plaintiffs.

The deal was closed and the entire purchase price paid. Defendants Phillips are not shown to be in anywise indebted to the seller or to hold any property belonging to him.

Assuming all the foregoing recitals and contentions to be true and that the vendor is liable for a commission by reason of the purchase, it is our conclusion that the bill is without equity. Plaintiffs’ case, if any, is in law.

Petition for certiorari is granted. The order overruling petitioners’ motion to dismiss the bill is quashed.

CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 So. 2d 114, 158 Fla. 163, 1946 Fla. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-williams-fla-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack