Tyler v. Justice

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tyler v. Justice

48 S.E. 328, 120 Ga. 879, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 733

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 10, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 S.E. 328 (Tyler v. Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tyler v. Justice, 48 S.E. 328, 120 Ga. 879, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 733 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Tish, P. J.

1. Assignments of error not referred to in the brief for the plaintiff in error will be treated by the Supreme Court as having been abandoned.

2. An owner of land “listed” it with a real-estate broker,' to be sold within a given time at a stated price, agreeing to pay the broker ten per cent, as commission if he sold it, and five per cent, commission if the owner should sell it. The owner sold it within the time specified in the agreement. In' a suit against the owner by the broker for his commission, it appeared that the number of the lot was, by mutual mistake of the parties, erroneously stated in the contract, but that the land was otherwise described so as to be easily identified. Held, that, under the maxim “falsa demonstiatio non nocet” (see Farlcas v. Duncan, 94 Ga. 27), the mere mistake as to the number of the lot was not sufficient to defeat a recovery by the plaintiff. -

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in so directing. Judgment affirmed.

All the'Justices concur.

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

Tish, P. J.

1. Assignments of error not referred to in the brief for the plaintiff in error will be treated by the Supreme Court as having been abandoned.

2. An owner of land “listed” it with a real-estate broker,' to be sold within a given time at a stated price, agreeing to pay the broker ten per cent, as commission if he sold it, and five per cent, commission if the owner should sell it. The owner sold it within the time specified in the agreement. In' a suit against the owner by the broker for his commission, it appeared that the number of the lot was, by mutual mistake of the parties, erroneously stated in the contract, but that the land was otherwise described so as to be easily identified. Held, that, under the maxim “falsa demonstiatio non nocet” (see Farlcas v. Duncan, 94 Ga. 27), the mere mistake as to the number of the lot was not sufficient to defeat a recovery by the plaintiff. -

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in so directing. Judgment affirmed.

All the'Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 S.E. 328, 120 Ga. 879, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-justice-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack