Curry v. Shields
| Decision Date | 04 November 1952 |
| Citation | 61 So.2d 326 |
| Parties | CURRY et al. v. SHIELDS et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
George B. Carter, Orlando, for appellants.
Joseph A. Perkins, Miami, for J. Larry Shields and Craig-Shields Realty, Inc.
Franks & Gordon and H. H. Eyles, Miami, for R. L. Morton and Estelle C. Meyer.
Appellant, Florida Real Estate Commission, filed an information, charging appellees with violating certain provisions of Chapter 475, F.S.A., being the Real Estate License Law. In their answer defendants denied the material allegations of the information. An examiner was appointed, testimony was taken and on final hearing the registration of J. Larry Shields and Craig-Shields Realty, Inc., suspended for a period of one year. The order also suspended the registration of R. L. Morton for six months and Estelle C. Meyer for three months. On appeal to the Circuit Court the order of the Real Estate Commission was reversed as to all defendants. We are confronted with an appeal from the decree of the Circuit Court.
Five questions are urged for determination but they all turn on the ultimate question of whether or not there was warrant in the record for the chancellor to overthrow the findings and judgment of the Real Estate Commission.
The pertinent statute Section 475.31, F.S.A., provides that the findings of fact of the Commission shall have the same force and effect as findings of the Master. In City of Miami v. Huttoe, Fla., 38 So.2d 819, we held that the findings of the Master would not be disturbed unless contrary to the manifest preponderance of the evidence. As contended by appellants, the gist of this case is (1) that the matter in litigation is one of public interest, and being so, it should be dealt with as such, rather than if it was a controversy between private individuals; (2) the alteration and recordation of a written agreement to purchase, by a broker or a salesman, should not be sanctioned except when authority to make the alteration and recordation is clearly given.
From this it follows that the real point for determination is not strictly one of whether or not there was evidence to support the findings, of the Master, but whether or not the evidence showed a wilful intent to alter the agreement to purchase, or was, in effect, an agreement altered by consent of the parties. The chancellor found that the finding of the Commission on this point was in error as to all the defendants and his finding is supported by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Groot v. Sheffield
...of review as was the case here. When the statute provides the appellate procedure, that course should be followed. Curry v. Shields, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 326, 327; State ex rel. Coleman v. Simmons, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d Recurring to the problem at hand we are reminded that certiorari is a discre......
-
State ex rel. Florida Indus. Commission v. Willis, C-13
...as was the case here, observing that 'when the statute provides the appellate procedure, that course should be followed.' Curry v. Shields, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 326, 327; State ex rel. Coleman v. Simmons, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 257. On that limited question the Supreme Court held that common-law ......
-
Town of Belleair v. Moran
...provides the appellate procedure, that course should be followed'. DeGrott v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912, citing Curry v. Shields, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 326, and State ex rel. Coleman v. Simmons, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 257. Even in F.S. ch. 120, F.S.A., the Administrative Procedure Act, und......
-
Shelton v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 1623
...one, a disciplinary proceeding against a real estate broker, involves the public interest and should be dealt with as such. Curry v. Shields, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 326. We are considering the statutorily imposed duties and responsibilities of a real estate broker in the practice of his profess......