Case Name: Carroll BAILEY, Appellant, v. Rose R. SWARTZ, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1957-10-10
Citations: 97 So. 2d 310
Docket Number: No. 57-146
Parties: Carroll BAILEY, Appellant, v. Rose R. SWARTZ, Appellee.
Judges: PEARSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 97
Pages: 310–312

Head Matter:
Carroll BAILEY, Appellant, v. Rose R. SWARTZ, Appellee.
No. 57-146.
District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.
Oct. 10, 1957.
Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Sibley & Davis, Miami Beach, for ap-pellee.

Opinion:
CARROLL, CHAS., Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court for Dade County. The appellant was the defendant in the court below, in a law action brought by a broker for the recovery of a commission on. a real estate transaction.
The jury's verdict was for $5,175, representing a five percent commission on a sale price of $103,500. In granting judgment on the verdict, on November 8, 1955, the court added interest for almost three years prior to the judgment, which interest had not been found or included in the verdict. The pertinent part of the judgment was as follows:
"It is thereupon ordered and adjudged that the plaintiff, Rose R. Swartz, do have and recover of and from the defendant, Carroll Bailey, the sum of Five Thousand One Hundred Seventy-five Dollars ($5,175.00), together with interest thereon at the rate of six (6%) percent per annum from December 30, 1952, and her costs in this behalf expended and hereby taxed at $39.15, for all which said amounts let execution issue."
The issue on which the case turned was whether or not the plaintiff broker was the procuring cause of the sale. The jury resolved that question in the plaintiff's, favor, and the record discloses substantial evidence to support the verdict on that feature.
We have examined the record in the light of the twenty-two assignments of error which were filed, including those-dealing with charges to the jury, and no. error is made to appear, except for the inclusion in the judgment of interest which was not found by the jury in its verdict.
In a post-judgment order denying a motion to amend the judgment, the trial court defended its inclusion of the interest in the judgment as being supported by the case of Tucker v. Hughey, D.C.S.D.Fla. Miami Div.1947, 6 F.R.D. 545.
The Tucker case was a decision of a federal trial court, which does not appear to have been reviewed on appeal. The federal court referred to the Florida cases of Shoup v. Waits, 91 Fla. 378, 107 So. 769, and State ex rel. Boulevard Mortgage Co. v. Thompson, 113 Fla. 419, 151 So. 704, holding that a trial court is without authority to add interest to the verdict of a jury, but the federal court ruled to the contrary in the case before it because of certain features in the handling of that case.
We find no reason here why those decisions of the Florida Supreme Court should not be followed.
Accordingly, the cause is remanded with directions to enter a proper judgment in accordance with the verdict of the jury, so that the judgment, as of the date it was originally entered, will be in the amount of $5,175, plus the costs but without interest prior to that date; and, as so modified and entered, the judgment will stand affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
PEARSON, J., concurs.
HORTON, J., dissents.