Walker v. O'Neal

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. O'Neal

94 S.E. 835, 21 Ga. App. 563, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 406

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1918

Docket8390

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 835 (Walker v. O'Neal) 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

Walker v. O'Neal, 94 S.E. 835, 21 Ga. App. 563, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 406 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. No error was committed in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

2. This suit was not on a quantum meruit, but on an express contract for commissions for a fixed amount, to wit, $250; hence it was error, warranting the grant of a new trial, for the court, over proper and timely objections, to allow evidence that the services of the plaintiffs in procuring a purchaser for the" property were “reasonably worth the sum of $100, and that the usual commission allowed real-estate agents was five per cent.”

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Luhe, J., concur. Luhe, J., was designated in place of Harwell, J., who was disqualified.

Complaint; from city court of LaGrange — Judge Harwell. December 21, 1917.

M. U. Mooty, for plaintiff in error. Dulce Davis, Hatton Lovejoy, contra. '

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