Judges: BARNS, Circuit Judge:
Attorneys: Akerman, Dial Akerman, for petitioners.
G.P. Garrett, for respondents.
Filed: Nov. 29, 1946
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: 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 Ph
Summary: 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 Phi..
More
I concur in Judge BARNS' opinion.
As I understand the bill filed by the plaintiffs below, respondents here, there was no agreement that the real estate commission should be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. The bill alleges that plaintiffs' contract of employment to sell the property for a certain commission was with the owner, Robertson. It is not alleged that Phillips, the purchaser, ever agreed to pay plaintiffs a commission. The full purchase price was paid in cash by Phillips to Robertson, and a deed delivered by Robertson to Phillips. It appears that Robertson is liable for the commission, $10,000.00, not Phillips. As I view it, the case of Moss v. Spurry, 140 Fla. 301, 191 So. 531, 125 A.L.R. 909, is not in point on the facts alleged in the bill. Whether Phillips is liable in damages to plaintiffs for fraudulently conspiring with Robertson, a non resident, to defeat plaintiffs below from collection of their commission, is not, as we see it, a question that we are called upon to answer in this case.
