Harrison v. Carpenter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harrison v. Carpenter

33 S.E.2d 274, 72 Ga. App. 149, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 533

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1945

Docket30656.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 S.E.2d 274 (Harrison v. Carpenter) 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

Harrison v. Carpenter, 33 S.E.2d 274, 72 Ga. App. 149, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 533 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinions

Parker, J.

In an action by a real-estate broker against the three executors of a will, all of whom had duly qualified, to recover commissions alleged to be due by reason of the breach of a contract between the plaintiff and the executors, in the absence of evidence that one of the executors entered into the alleged agreement or ratified it by accepting the benefit of the plaintiff’s services with the knowledge of all the *150 material facts, the grant of a nonsuit was not error. Where more than one executor qualifies, all shall join in making contracts binding upon the estate. Code, § 113-1504; Hewlett v. Almand, 29 Ga. App. 392 (4) (115 S. E. 501); Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Jones, 171 Ga. 150 (154 S. E. 791). There was no evidence showing that one of the executors entered into the contract, or knew that either of the other two had done so, or knew that the plaintiff had rendered valuable services under it. The court did not err in granting the nonsuit. It is not necessary to pass upon any of the other questions raised.

Decided March 3, 1945. Howard, Camp & Tiller, Blair & Carmichael, for plaintiff. Sam J. Welsch, John T. Dorsey, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Parker, J.

In an action by a real-estate broker against the three executors of a will, all of whom had duly qualified, to recover commissions alleged to be due by reason of the breach of a contract between the plaintiff and the executors, in the absence of evidence that one of the executors entered into the alleged agreement or ratified it by accepting the benefit of the plaintiff’s services with the knowledge of all the *150 material facts, the grant of a nonsuit was not error. Where more than one executor qualifies, all shall join in making contracts binding upon the estate. Code, § 113-1504; Hewlett v. Almand, 29 Ga. App. 392 (4) (115 S. E. 501); Tennessee Chemical Co. v. Jones, 171 Ga. 150 (154 S. E. 791). There was no evidence showing that one of the executors entered into the contract, or knew that either of the other two had done so, or knew that the plaintiff had rendered valuable services under it. The court did not err in granting the nonsuit. It is not necessary to pass upon any of the other questions raised.

Decided March 3, 1945. Howard, Camp & Tiller, Blair & Carmichael, for plaintiff. Sam J. Welsch, John T. Dorsey, for defendants.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.E.2d 274, 72 Ga. App. 149, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 533, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-carpenter-gactapp-1945.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack