Beets v. Padgett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Beets v. Padgett

179 S.E.2d 560, 123 Ga. App. 68, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 724

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1970

Docket45720

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 179 S.E.2d 560 (Beets v. Padgett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beets v. Padgett, 179 S.E.2d 560, 123 Ga. App. 68, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 724 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

1. The plaintiff brought an action to recover a real estate commission which he alleged was due him by his employer who was a real estate broker. While there was evidence that the plaintiff was employed as a real estate salesman, the record fails to show that he had obtained a license as required by Code § 84-1410. It was a condition precedent to recovery that the plaintiff prove he had the necessary license and the failure to do so requires the grant of a new trial. Code Ann. § 84-1413. See Maxwell v. Tucker, 118 Ga. App. 695, 698 (165 SE2d 459); Household Finance Corp. v. Johnson, 119 Ga. App. 49 (165 SE2d 864); Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga. App. 557, 559 (171 SE2d 646).

2. The defendant also contends the evidence was not sufficient to *69 support the verdict. With this contention we cannot agree. Whiie in conflict, the testimony was enough to prove that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale.

Submitted October 1, 1970 Decided December 3, 1970. Frank D. Schaffer, Doyle C. Brown, for appellant. S. M. Landress, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Quillian, Judge.

1. The plaintiff brought an action to recover a real estate commission which he alleged was due him by his employer who was a real estate broker. While there was evidence that the plaintiff was employed as a real estate salesman, the record fails to show that he had obtained a license as required by Code § 84-1410. It was a condition precedent to recovery that the plaintiff prove he had the necessary license and the failure to do so requires the grant of a new trial. Code Ann. § 84-1413. See Maxwell v. Tucker, 118 Ga. App. 695, 698 (165 SE2d 459); Household Finance Corp. v. Johnson, 119 Ga. App. 49 (165 SE2d 864); Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga. App. 557, 559 (171 SE2d 646).

2. The defendant also contends the evidence was not sufficient to *69 support the verdict. With this contention we cannot agree. Whiie in conflict, the testimony was enough to prove that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale.

Submitted October 1, 1970 Decided December 3, 1970. Frank D. Schaffer, Doyle C. Brown, for appellant. S. M. Landress, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Bell, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E.2d 560, 123 Ga. App. 68, 1970 Ga. App. LEXIS 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beets-v-padgett-gactapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack