Hatton v. Morton & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hatton v. Morton & Co.

79 S.E. 371, 13 Ga. App. 469, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 211

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 23, 1913

Docket4767, 4780

StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 371 (Hatton v. Morton & 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

Hatton v. Morton & Co., 79 S.E. 371, 13 Ga. App. 469, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 211 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The contract to pay commissions for the sale of real estate, upon which the suit was brought, was made and was to be performed within the State of Georgia; and hence its validity, form, and effect is to be controlled by the law of this State.

2. Under the ruling of this court in Ford v. Thomason, 11 Ga. App. 359 (75 S. E. 269), which was followed in Horsley v. Woodley, 12 Ga. App. 456 (78 S. E. 260), the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; because he had not registered as a real-estate dealer, as required' by law. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; and in view of the affirmance of that judgment, the assignments of error in the cross-bill of exceptions will not be considered.

Judgment upon the main hill of exceptions affirmed. Gross-hill of exceptions dismissed.

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

Russell, J.

1. The contract to pay commissions for the sale of real estate, upon which the suit was brought, was made and was to be performed within the State of Georgia; and hence its validity, form, and effect is to be controlled by the law of this State.

2. Under the ruling of this court in Ford v. Thomason, 11 Ga. App. 359 (75 S. E. 269), which was followed in Horsley v. Woodley, 12 Ga. App. 456 (78 S. E. 260), the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; because he had not registered as a real-estate dealer, as required' by law. The court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant; and in view of the affirmance of that judgment, the assignments of error in the cross-bill of exceptions will not be considered.

Judgment upon the main hill of exceptions affirmed. Gross-hill of exceptions dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 371, 13 Ga. App. 469, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatton-v-morton-co-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack