Davis v. Davis & Joiner Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. Davis & Joiner Realty Co.

99 S.E. 60, 23 Ga. App. 577, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 225

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1919

Docket9984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 60 (Davis v. Davis & Joiner Realty Co.) 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

Davis v. Davis & Joiner Realty Co., 99 S.E. 60, 23 Ga. App. 577, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. A “broker’s commissions are earned when, during the agency, he finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner” (Park’s Ann. [578]*578Code, § 3587, and note) ; and in view of the testimony of the defendant in this case, that the plaintiff (a broker suing for commission) “told me that Mr. Monerief [the would-be purchaser] was ready to take the property on the terms stated; . . I knew that Mr. Monerief was able to pay for the-property,” which evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the broker and of the would-be purchaser, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff can not be set aside by this court on the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 17, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Thomasville—Judge W. H. Hammond. July 8, 1918.

Titus, Dekle & Hopkins, for plaintiff in error. C. E. Hay, contra.

2. None of the special grounds show reversible error, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

1. A “broker’s commissions are earned when, during the agency, he finds a purchaser ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner” (Park’s Ann. [578]*578Code, § 3587, and note) ; and in view of the testimony of the defendant in this case, that the plaintiff (a broker suing for commission) “told me that Mr. Monerief [the would-be purchaser] was ready to take the property on the terms stated; . . I knew that Mr. Monerief was able to pay for the-property,” which evidence was corroborated by the testimony of the broker and of the would-be purchaser, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff can not be set aside by this court on the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

Decided April 17, 1919.

Complaint; from city court of Thomasville—Judge W. H. Hammond. July 8, 1918.

Titus, Dekle & Hopkins, for plaintiff in error. C. E. Hay, contra.

2. None of the special grounds show reversible error, and the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is

Affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 60, 23 Ga. App. 577, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-davis-joiner-realty-co-gactapp-1919.