GREATER MIAMI REALTY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERTZ INVESTMENT CO., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1964-07-28
No. 64-154
Before BARKDULL, C. J., TILLMAN PEARSON, J., and SPAET, HAROLD B., Associate Judge.
166 So. 2d 614 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1964)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court held that the amended complaint stated a cause of action for brokerage commission, despite evidentiary matter and a paucity of ultimate facts.


Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff, a broker, sued for a commission. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the trial court granted.…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
SPAET, HAROLD B., Associate Judge.

SPAET, HAROLD B., Associate Judge.

The appellant, plaintiff below, filed suit against the appellee, one of the defendants below, for brokerage commission. To a count in an amended complaint, the defendant HERTZ INVESTMENT CO., filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. After hearing on said motion the court below granted to defendant fifteen days to answer the said count in the amended complaint.

Thereafter, the cause was noticed for trial. Shortly before the date set for trial, the defendant filed a motion under Rule 1.11 (c)' 30 F.S.A., for judgment on the pleadings. On the date set for trial the motion for judgment on the pleadings was heard and judgment entered in favor of the defendant HERTZ INVESTMENT CO.

Without deciding whether the motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 1.11(c), was timely made, (“within such time as not to delay the trial”), the judgment must be reversed because the count attacked did state a cause of action.

Although much evidentiary matter is pleaded, and there is a paucity of ultimate facts, a cause of action on behalf of the broker is set forth1. That is dispositive of this appeal.

The judgment appealed should be and is hereby reversed.

Reversed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw