Harris v. Warmack

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. Warmack

101 S.E. 713, 24 Ga. App. 600, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 959

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 16, 1919

Docket10429

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.E. 713 (Harris v. Warmack) 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

Harris v. Warmack, 101 S.E. 713, 24 Ga. App. 600, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 959 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where the owner of real estate listed it with a broker for the purpose of sale upon certain terms, and the broker failed to procure a purchaser upon such terms, but did procure one who entered into a contract directly with the owner upon different terms, part of the consideration of the. latter terms being a conveyance to the owner by the purchaser of a lot, but where such contract of sale was not consummated, by reason of the inability of the purchaser to convey the lot to the owner, because the purchaser had no title to the lot and could not obtain title thereto, the purchaser for this reason was not “ready, willing, and able” to buy upon the terms agreed upon by him with the owner, and the broker, not having procured a purchaser “ready, willing, and able” to buy upon any terms, did not earn any commission upon the alleged sale.

2. The verdict was demanded by the evidence, and it is therefore not necessary to consider any of'the alleged errors in the judge’s charge.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where the owner of real estate listed it with a broker for the purpose of sale upon certain terms, and the broker failed to procure a purchaser upon such terms, but did procure one who entered into a contract directly with the owner upon different terms, part of the consideration of the. latter terms being a conveyance to the owner by the purchaser of a lot, but where such contract of sale was not consummated, by reason of the inability of the purchaser to convey the lot to the owner, because the purchaser had no title to the lot and could not obtain title thereto, the purchaser for this reason was not “ready, willing, and able” to buy upon the terms agreed upon by him with the owner, and the broker, not having procured a purchaser “ready, willing, and able” to buy upon any terms, did not earn any commission upon the alleged sale.

2. The verdict was demanded by the evidence, and it is therefore not necessary to consider any of'the alleged errors in the judge’s charge.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E. 713, 24 Ga. App. 600, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-warmack-gactapp-1919.