Brightwell v. Epting
This text of 72 Ga. App. 464 (Brightwell v. Epting) 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.
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The un[466]*466disputed evidence showed the following facts: The defendants employed the plaintiff as their agent to sell the property in question for $9500; the plaintiff procured a customer who was readj", able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy the property for said sum; that the plaintiff was to receive as his commission the sum of $362.50. The evidence, although in sharp conflict, further authorized the jury to find that Ridlehuber had made a timely tender of the additional binder of $400 to the plaintiff (the agent of the defendants) and that the tender was waived by the plaintiff, and subsequently waived by the defendants. The evidence further authorized a finding that the defendants breached their contract of sale because, after signing it, they had received through another real-estate broker an offer of $10,500 for the property. In our opinion the evidence amply authorized the verdict. Under the foregoing rulings, none of the special grounds of the motion for new trial shows cause for a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 Ga. App. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brightwell-v-epting-gactapp-1945.