Hale v. Chatham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hale v. Chatham

86 S.E.2d 536, 91 Ga. App. 519, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 795

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 25, 1955

Docket35549

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 86 S.E.2d 536 (Hale v. Chatham) 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

Hale v. Chatham, 86 S.E.2d 536, 91 Ga. App. 519, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 795 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Townsend, J.

An action brought by a real-estate broker to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract for commissions is subject to *520 general demurrer when, it fails to allege that the broker has fully complied with the license laws of this State. (Regarding the necessity for license, see Code § 84-1413.) It is immaterial whether the point was argued and considered in the trial court or not. Cline v. Crane, 90 Ga. App. 192 (82 S. E. 2d 175); Mayo v. Lynes, 80 Ga. App. 4 (55 S. E. 2d 174); Moody v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 829 (3) (41 S. E. 2d 560). Accordingly, the petition here by a real-estate broker, seeking to recover commissions on an alleged exclusive listing contract, but failing to allege that the broker was legally licensed as such, was subject to general demurrer, and the trial court erred in overruling the same.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Decided February 25, 1955. Fraser & Shelfer, for plaintiff in error. Wright, Oxford & Love, Clifford Oxford, contra.

Judgment reversed.

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

Townsend, J.

An action brought by a real-estate broker to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract for commissions is subject to *520 general demurrer when, it fails to allege that the broker has fully complied with the license laws of this State. (Regarding the necessity for license, see Code § 84-1413.) It is immaterial whether the point was argued and considered in the trial court or not. Cline v. Crane, 90 Ga. App. 192 (82 S. E. 2d 175); Mayo v. Lynes, 80 Ga. App. 4 (55 S. E. 2d 174); Moody v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 829 (3) (41 S. E. 2d 560). Accordingly, the petition here by a real-estate broker, seeking to recover commissions on an alleged exclusive listing contract, but failing to allege that the broker was legally licensed as such, was subject to general demurrer, and the trial court erred in overruling the same.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Decided February 25, 1955. Fraser & Shelfer, for plaintiff in error. Wright, Oxford & Love, Clifford Oxford, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E.2d 536, 91 Ga. App. 519, 1955 Ga. App. LEXIS 795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-chatham-gactapp-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack