Gifford v. Latimer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gifford v. Latimer

145 S.E. 534, 38 Ga. App. 760, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 440

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1928

Docket18771

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E. 534 (Gifford v. Latimer) 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

Gifford v. Latimer, 145 S.E. 534, 38 Ga. App. 760, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 440 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This was a suit by a real-estate broker for commissions. See Latimer v. Gifford, 37 Ga. App. 1 (138 S. E. 859). The jury found for the defendants. No error of law is complained of, and the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is based solely upon the usual general grounds. The jury being authorized by the evidence to find that the [761]*761plaintiff had been given a reasonable time in order to effect a sale under the contract of listment, which was indefinite as to the time of his employment, and that after such reasonable time had elapsed and before any purchaser had been procured and presented, the property had been withdrawn from the hands of the broker, the verdict in favor of the defendants was not without evidence to support it.

Decided November 16, 1928. William, Attaway, E. B. Moss, for plaintiff. J. E. Mozley, George D. Anderson, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This was a suit by a real-estate broker for commissions. See Latimer v. Gifford, 37 Ga. App. 1 (138 S. E. 859). The jury found for the defendants. No error of law is complained of, and the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial is based solely upon the usual general grounds. The jury being authorized by the evidence to find that the [761]*761plaintiff had been given a reasonable time in order to effect a sale under the contract of listment, which was indefinite as to the time of his employment, and that after such reasonable time had elapsed and before any purchaser had been procured and presented, the property had been withdrawn from the hands of the broker, the verdict in favor of the defendants was not without evidence to support it.

Decided November 16, 1928. William, Attaway, E. B. Moss, for plaintiff. J. E. Mozley, George D. Anderson, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 534, 38 Ga. App. 760, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-latimer-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack