Landrum v. Lipscomb-Ellis Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Landrum v. Lipscomb-Ellis Co.

62 Ga. App. 649

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 22, 1940

Docket28196

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Ga. App. 649 (Landrum v. Lipscomb-Ellis 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

Landrum v. Lipscomb-Ellis Co., 62 Ga. App. 649 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

1..Where property is placed in the hands of a real-estate broker for sale on commission, the commission is earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser, ready, able, and willing to buy, and .who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Code, § 4-213; Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479 (59 S. E. 259); Payne v. Ponder, 139 Ga. 283 (77 S. E. 32); Gresham v. Lee, 152 Ga. 829, 832 (111 S. E. 404); Floyd v. Boyd, 16 Ga. App. 43 (5) (84 S. E. 494); Montgomery v. Lester, 25 Ga. App. 660, 662 (104 8. E. 28). The petition as amended set forth a cause of action for commission due the plaintiff real-estate broker, and the trial court properly overruled the general demurrer.

2. But where, as in the present case, it, appears from the uneontradieted evidence that the plaintiff never produced a customer who was ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy on the terms expressly stipulated by the. defendant; the owner of the property in [650]*650question, and that, before the sale of the property by the defendant himself to one who had been introduced to him by the plaintiff’s agent as its prospect, the negotiations between such prospect and the plaintiff had come to an end, and that the defendant had not at any time interfered with the efforts of the plaintiff to effect a sale during the agency, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded as a matter of law, and the judge, before whom the case was tried without the aid of a jury, erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff and in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. Doonan v. Ives, 73 Ga. 295, 303 (3); Thompson v. Weeks, 60 Ga. App. 560, 563 (4 S. E. 2d, 415).

Decided April 22, 1940. Rehearing denied June 10, 1940.

3. The appellate division of the civil court of Fulton County properly affirmed the judgment overruling the general demurrer, but erred in affirming the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., conour. Clifford Hendrix, for plaintiff in error. Sutherland, Tuttle & Brennan, William, G. Grant, contra.

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

Sutton, J.

1..Where property is placed in the hands of a real-estate broker for sale on commission, the commission is earned when, during the agency, the broker finds a purchaser, ready, able, and willing to buy, and .who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner. Code, § 4-213; Phinizy v. Bush, 129 Ga. 479 (59 S. E. 259); Payne v. Ponder, 139 Ga. 283 (77 S. E. 32); Gresham v. Lee, 152 Ga. 829, 832 (111 S. E. 404); Floyd v. Boyd, 16 Ga. App. 43 (5) (84 S. E. 494); Montgomery v. Lester, 25 Ga. App. 660, 662 (104 8. E. 28). The petition as amended set forth a cause of action for commission due the plaintiff real-estate broker, and the trial court properly overruled the general demurrer.

2. But where, as in the present case, it, appears from the uneontradieted evidence that the plaintiff never produced a customer who was ready, able, and willing to buy, and who actually offered to buy on the terms expressly stipulated by the. defendant; the owner of the property in [650]*650question, and that, before the sale of the property by the defendant himself to one who had been introduced to him by the plaintiff’s agent as its prospect, the negotiations between such prospect and the plaintiff had come to an end, and that the defendant had not at any time interfered with the efforts of the plaintiff to effect a sale during the agency, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded as a matter of law, and the judge, before whom the case was tried without the aid of a jury, erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff and in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial. Doonan v. Ives, 73 Ga. 295, 303 (3); Thompson v. Weeks, 60 Ga. App. 560, 563 (4 S. E. 2d, 415).

Decided April 22, 1940. Rehearing denied June 10, 1940.

3. The appellate division of the civil court of Fulton County properly affirmed the judgment overruling the general demurrer, but erred in affirming the judgment overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., conour. Clifford Hendrix, for plaintiff in error. Sutherland, Tuttle & Brennan, William, G. Grant, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Ga. App. 649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landrum-v-lipscomb-ellis-co-gactapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack