From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ZIDE v. ZENCHENKO

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 31, 1958
101 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)

Opinion

No. 57-354.

February 27, 1958. Rehearing Denied March 31, 1958.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Robert H. Anderson, Chancellor.

Arthur E. Sweet and Abner Solomon, Miami, for appellant.

Warren Glasgow, Miami, for appellee.


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 Wn.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.


Summaries of

ZIDE v. ZENCHENKO

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Mar 31, 1958
101 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
Case details for

ZIDE v. ZENCHENKO

Case Details

Full title:JEAN ZIDE, DOING BUSINESS AS DADE COUNTY REALTY, APPELLANT, v. ANNA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Mar 31, 1958

Citations

101 So. 2d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)

Citing Cases

Hardin-Lowrey Realty Co. v. Hine

And the contract is binding as between the seller and broker unless the broker had notice of defects which…

Financial Bus. Serv. Inc. v. Schmitt

In other words, the broker takes the contract to procure a purchaser who is ready, willing and able to buy…