Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 324.320 (2026)

Repealed, 1976

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Broker, salesman not to sue for compensation without being licensed. History: Repealed 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 23. -- Amended 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 51, sec. 8. -- Amended 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 184, secs. 3 and 11. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 3990e-5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1943–1957 · leading case: Lowther v. Peoples Bank, 169 S.W.2d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lowther v. Peoples Bank, 169 S.W.2d 35 (Ky. Ct. App. 1943). · cites it 10× “At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the bank on the ground that plaintiff had not averred and proved that he was a duly licensed broker or real estate salesman at the time his cause of action arose as is provided in Section…”

Shelton v. McCarroll, 214 S.W.2d 396 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “and in a separate paragraph pleaded appellant did not have a license from the State Real Estate Commission to act as a real estate broker or salesman and pleaded in bar to this action KRS 324.320 which reads: “No person, copartnership, or corporation engaged in the business or…”

Schmid v. Anderson, 222 S.W.2d 931 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). “The appellant’s final ground for reversal is that the judgment erroneously granted a commission to a real estate broker without any allegation or proof that he was licensed, as required by KRS 324.320. Since the statute cited applies to real estate brokers-bringing an action, it…”

Palfreeman v. Broderick, 208 S.W.2d 736 (Ky. Ct. App. 1948). “Our first question is whether Broderick, being an unlicensed real estate agent, was barred from recovering the $2,000 agent’s fee for his services by reason of the provisions of KRS 324.320. While the above statutory provision apparently does operate to bar Broderick’s recovery…”

Edmonds v. Fehler & Feinauer Constr. Co., 149 F. Supp. 396 (E.D. Ky. 1957). · cites it 3× “It is the contention of the defendant in support of its motion to dismiss that the complaint must conform to the provisions of KRS 324.320 and that in order for the plaintiff to sustain his claim it is necessary as a jurisdictional fact that he should allege that he was a duly…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.