Walker v. O'Neal

94 S.E. 835, 21 Ga. App. 563, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 406
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 21, 1918·No. 8390·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

94 S.E. 835 (Walker v. O'Neal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Walter v. Arp
77 S.E.2d 82 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Johns v. League, Duvall & Powell Inc.
45 S.E.2d 211 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Blackston v. Durant
15 S.E.2d 261 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Kraft v. Rowland & Rowland
128 S.E. 812 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)