Morgan v. Hemphill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Morgan v. Hemphill

106 S.E.2d 865, 98 Ga. App. 732, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 669

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 2, 1958

Docket37216

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 106 S.E.2d 865 (Morgan v. Hemphill) 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

Morgan v. Hemphill, 106 S.E.2d 865, 98 Ga. App. 732, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 669 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

A provision in a contract for the sale of realty which provides that, “The purchase price of said property shall be: Fifty-two' thousand dollars ($52,000), to be paid as follows: Subject to terms of existing loan- (which is approx. $30,000, and int. rate suitable to purchaser). All cash to be paid above loan,” is too indefinite and uncertain to identify any particular loan and fails to disclose the ternrs of payment of the purchase price and the contract, therefore, is unenforceable at law (Morgan v. Hemphill, 214 Ga. 555, 105 S. E. 2d 580), and a real-estate broker cannot recover for commissions alleged due him by the vendor named in the contract by virtue of the following provisions of the contract of sale: “The real-estate broker negotiating this contract is made a party to this contract to enable broker to■ enforce his commission rights hereunder against the parties hereto on the following basis: If sale is not consummated because of seller’s inability, failure or refusal to convey marketable title, seller shall pay full commission to broker.” The contract being unenforceable between the named vendor and vendee, the provision quoted above referring to the broker’s commission is likewise unenforceable as between the broker and the vendor. Brown v. White, 73 Ga. App. 524 (37 S. E. 2d 213).

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

A provision in a contract for the sale of realty which provides that, “The purchase price of said property shall be: Fifty-two' thousand dollars ($52,000), to be paid as follows: Subject to terms of existing loan- (which is approx. $30,000, and int. rate suitable to purchaser). All cash to be paid above loan,” is too indefinite and uncertain to identify any particular loan and fails to disclose the ternrs of payment of the purchase price and the contract, therefore, is unenforceable at law (Morgan v. Hemphill, 214 Ga. 555, 105 S. E. 2d 580), and a real-estate broker cannot recover for commissions alleged due him by the vendor named in the contract by virtue of the following provisions of the contract of sale: “The real-estate broker negotiating this contract is made a party to this contract to enable broker to■ enforce his commission rights hereunder against the parties hereto on the following basis: If sale is not consummated because of seller’s inability, failure or refusal to convey marketable title, seller shall pay full commission to broker.” The contract being unenforceable between the named vendor and vendee, the provision quoted above referring to the broker’s commission is likewise unenforceable as between the broker and the vendor. Brown v. White, 73 Ga. App. 524 (37 S. E. 2d 213).

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 S.E.2d 865, 98 Ga. App. 732, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-hemphill-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack