Miller v. Martin-Ozburn Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Miller v. Martin-Ozburn Realty Co.

90 S.E. 652, 18 Ga. App. 768, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1256

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1916

Docket7420

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 652 (Miller v. Martin-Ozburn Realty 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

Miller v. Martin-Ozburn Realty Co., 90 S.E. 652, 18 Ga. App. 768, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1256 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. This case was a suit upon a contract to pay a real-estate agent’s commissions, and the sole defense pleaded was constructive or legal fraud. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant, by the slightest inquiry of the tenants of the property involved (and the making of such an inquiry was suggested to him by the plaintiff when they were examining the property, but this suggestion was not acted upon by the defendant, who instead voluntarily chose to rely upon the statements of the plaintiff), could have discovered the falsity of the innocently made representations of the plaintiff in regard to the renting value of the property. Under such facts, the defense was insufficient in law. Tindall v. Harkinson, 19 Ga. 448; Collier v. Harkness, 26 Ga. 362 (71 Am. D. 216); Allen v. Gibson, 53 Ga. 600; Fuller v. Buice, 80 Ga. 395 (6 S. E. 17); Thompson v. Boyce, 84 Ga. 497 (11 S. E. 353); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (41 S. E. 686); Brannen v. Brannen, 135 Ga. 590 (69 S. E. 1079).

2. The sole defense being insufficient in law, the verdict for the plaintiff, for the full amount sued for, was demanded. This being true, it is unnecessary to discuss the alleged errors in the charge of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. This case was a suit upon a contract to pay a real-estate agent’s commissions, and the sole defense pleaded was constructive or legal fraud. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant, by the slightest inquiry of the tenants of the property involved (and the making of such an inquiry was suggested to him by the plaintiff when they were examining the property, but this suggestion was not acted upon by the defendant, who instead voluntarily chose to rely upon the statements of the plaintiff), could have discovered the falsity of the innocently made representations of the plaintiff in regard to the renting value of the property. Under such facts, the defense was insufficient in law. Tindall v. Harkinson, 19 Ga. 448; Collier v. Harkness, 26 Ga. 362 (71 Am. D. 216); Allen v. Gibson, 53 Ga. 600; Fuller v. Buice, 80 Ga. 395 (6 S. E. 17); Thompson v. Boyce, 84 Ga. 497 (11 S. E. 353); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (41 S. E. 686); Brannen v. Brannen, 135 Ga. 590 (69 S. E. 1079).

2. The sole defense being insufficient in law, the verdict for the plaintiff, for the full amount sued for, was demanded. This being true, it is unnecessary to discuss the alleged errors in the charge of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 652, 18 Ga. App. 768, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-martin-ozburn-realty-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack