Tidwell v. Hines

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tidwell v. Hines

113 S.E. 48, 28 Ga. App. 806, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 878

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 24, 1922

Docket13035

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 48 (Tidwell v. Hines) 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

Tidwell v. Hines, 113 S.E. 48, 28 Ga. App. 806, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 878 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Construing the contract sued on as giving to the plaintiff an option to purchase within a stipulated period of time the real estate therein mentioned, it does not appear that within such time he availed himself of his right by offering to purchase upon the terms stipulated.

2. But construing the contract as one authorizing the plaintiff to act as a real-estate broker for the defendant, to procure for the latter a purchaser for the real estate therein mentioned, a nonsuit was properly awarded.

3. Even assuming that the person to whom the owner himself directly sold the property was one with whom the broker had been negotiating, but from whom the broker had failed to procure an offer to buy upon the terms stipulated, it must nevertheless appear, since the owner had not relinquished his right to sell the property himself, that he negotiated the sale directly to the customer procured by the broker, with a fraud[807]*807ulent intent to deprive the broker of his commission; and where the evidence does not show or authorize the inference that the owner, when negotiating with the purchaser, had actual knowledge that the purchaser had been procured by the broker, there was no evidence to establish such fraudulent intent.

Decided July 24, 1922.

Complaint; from city court of Quitman — Judge Baum. October 17, 1921.

Bennett & Harrell, for plaintiff. Weston & McCall, for defendant.

4. Notice, to an agent of the owner, authorized to negotiate with the broker, that the broker had procured as a customer for the property the person to whom the owner afterwards sold the property could not be actual knowledge to the owner, and therefore could not be the basis of actual fraud on the part of the owner.

5. The court properly excluded the evidence offered by the plaintiff and objected to by the defendant, and properly granted a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jerkins, P. J., concurs.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Construing the contract sued on as giving to the plaintiff an option to purchase within a stipulated period of time the real estate therein mentioned, it does not appear that within such time he availed himself of his right by offering to purchase upon the terms stipulated.

2. But construing the contract as one authorizing the plaintiff to act as a real-estate broker for the defendant, to procure for the latter a purchaser for the real estate therein mentioned, a nonsuit was properly awarded.

3. Even assuming that the person to whom the owner himself directly sold the property was one with whom the broker had been negotiating, but from whom the broker had failed to procure an offer to buy upon the terms stipulated, it must nevertheless appear, since the owner had not relinquished his right to sell the property himself, that he negotiated the sale directly to the customer procured by the broker, with a fraud[807]*807ulent intent to deprive the broker of his commission; and where the evidence does not show or authorize the inference that the owner, when negotiating with the purchaser, had actual knowledge that the purchaser had been procured by the broker, there was no evidence to establish such fraudulent intent.

Decided July 24, 1922.

Complaint; from city court of Quitman — Judge Baum. October 17, 1921.

Bennett & Harrell, for plaintiff. Weston & McCall, for defendant.

4. Notice, to an agent of the owner, authorized to negotiate with the broker, that the broker had procured as a customer for the property the person to whom the owner afterwards sold the property could not be actual knowledge to the owner, and therefore could not be the basis of actual fraud on the part of the owner.

5. The court properly excluded the evidence offered by the plaintiff and objected to by the defendant, and properly granted a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jerkins, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 48, 28 Ga. App. 806, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tidwell-v-hines-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack