Chatham v. McDow

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chatham v. McDow

120 S.E.2d 33, 103 Ga. App. 527, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 990

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 18, 1961

Docket38710

StatusPublished

This text of 120 S.E.2d 33 (Chatham v. McDow) 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

Chatham v. McDow, 120 S.E.2d 33, 103 Ga. App. 527, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 990 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, Chief Judge.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff, an individual, entered into the alleged contract for a division of commissions with the defendant, an individual. The petition [530]*530further alleges that the “foregoing agreement” was reduced to writing and incorporated in the option granted by. the owner of the property to the plaintiff. The provision in the option relating to the commission is as follows: “10% commission to be shared equally by B. C. McDow Realty Company, 1927 Meador Ave., S. .E., and Chatham Bros. Realty Co., 2901 Buford Hiway, N.E.” In this view, in the absence of any assignment of the contract to the plaintiff, any cause of action for the breach of a commission contract, which may exist, would be in Chatham Bros. Realty Company and not the plaintiff, and against B. C. McDow Realty Company.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, J., concurs. Nichols, J., concurs in the judgment.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff, an individual, entered into the alleged contract for a division of commissions with the defendant, an individual. The petition [530]*530further alleges that the “foregoing agreement” was reduced to writing and incorporated in the option granted by. the owner of the property to the plaintiff. The provision in the option relating to the commission is as follows: “10% commission to be shared equally by B. C. McDow Realty Company, 1927 Meador Ave., S. .E., and Chatham Bros. Realty Co., 2901 Buford Hiway, N.E.” In this view, in the absence of any assignment of the contract to the plaintiff, any cause of action for the breach of a commission contract, which may exist, would be in Chatham Bros. Realty Company and not the plaintiff, and against B. C. McDow Realty Company.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, J., concurs. Nichols, J., concurs in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E.2d 33, 103 Ga. App. 527, 1961 Ga. App. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatham-v-mcdow-gactapp-1961.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack