Shuey v. Wolf

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shuey v. Wolf

107 So. 2d 195

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 10, 1958

DocketNo. 421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 So. 2d 195 (Shuey v. Wolf) 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

Shuey v. Wolf, 107 So. 2d 195 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This was an action brought by the appellant, a registered real estate broker, to recover the sum of $50,736 as a commission for services claimed to have been rendered by him in finding a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on terms accepta[196]*196ble to appellee, which offer appellee refused to accept.

Both parties sought judgment through summary proceeding. Their respective motions were supported by affidavits and depositions. The trial court granted the motion of appellee for summary judgment, in consequence of which he entered judgment for appellee. Basically, the court’s position was that there was no genuine issue of any material fact on question of liability of ap-pellee on the cause of action stated; that there had been no complete listing of the property; and that, as a matter of law, appellant had not found a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on terms acceptable or agreed to by appellee. In this connection see the case of McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781.

We do not find from the record that the trial judge erred in entering summary judgment for appellee. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., SHANNON, J., and PARKS, L. L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This was an action brought by the appellant, a registered real estate broker, to recover the sum of $50,736 as a commission for services claimed to have been rendered by him in finding a purchaser ready, willing, and able to buy on terms accepta[196]*196ble to appellee, which offer appellee refused to accept.

Both parties sought judgment through summary proceeding. Their respective motions were supported by affidavits and depositions. The trial court granted the motion of appellee for summary judgment, in consequence of which he entered judgment for appellee. Basically, the court’s position was that there was no genuine issue of any material fact on question of liability of ap-pellee on the cause of action stated; that there had been no complete listing of the property; and that, as a matter of law, appellant had not found a purchaser ready, able and willing to buy on terms acceptable or agreed to by appellee. In this connection see the case of McAllister Hotel, Inc. v. Porte, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 781.

We do not find from the record that the trial judge erred in entering summary judgment for appellee. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

KANNER, C. J., SHANNON, J., and PARKS, L. L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 So. 2d 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shuey-v-wolf-fladistctapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack