Zide v. Zenchenko

101 So. 2d 64
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 27, 1958·No. No. 57-354·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant is a real estate broker who sought to recover a commission by a cross complaint in chancery. The sale had failed because of a defect in title. The chancellor found upon the basis of conflicting testimony that the broker accepted employment with knowledge of the defect and that it might preclude a sale. The chancellor properly dismissed the cross bill after trial. See Camp Lumber Co. v. Tedder, 78 Fla. 183, 82 So. 865, where the absence of notice of defective title is set forth as an element necessary for recovery by broker upon a sale which fails because of defective title in the seller. See cases cited in Best v. Kelley, 22 Wash.2d 257, 155 P.2d 794, 156 A.L.R. 1398; 169 A.L.R. 617.

Affirmed.

CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON and PEARSON, JJ., concur.

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

Zide v. Zenchenko, 101 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Ct. App. 1958).

101 So. 2d 64 (Zide v. Zenchenko) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Financial Business Services, Inc. v. Schmitt
272 So. 2d 536 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1973)
Cheek v. Long
235 So. 2d 349 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Rod-Lyn Corp. v. DeBelay
231 So. 2d 233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1970)
Hardin-Lowrey Realty Co. v. Hine
213 So. 2d 308 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1968)
Present v. Mueller
119 So. 2d 802 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)