Ware v. Ware & Harper

92 S.E. 961, 20 Ga. App. 202, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 811
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 14, 1917
Docket8389
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 961 (Ware v. Ware & Harper) 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
Ware v. Ware & Harper, 92 S.E. 961, 20 Ga. App. 202, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 811 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

George, J.

1. Service of a bill of exceptions upon counsel of record in the case binds all parties represented in the trial court by the counsel served. Acts of 1911, p. 149; § 6164 Park’s Ann. Code. Redman v. Hitchins, 113 Ga. 380 (38 S. E. 819). The assignments of error in the bill of exceptions in this case are sufficient.

2. The defendant admitted the execution of the contract which is the basis of this suit, and filed a plea of fraud in its procurement. The defendant could read and write, and there was no trick, artifice, or fraud practiced upon him which prevented him from reading the contract. The relation. between the parties was that of landowner and [203]*203real-estate agent employed for the purpose of negotiating a sale of the land. In respect to the services to be rendered by the real-estate agent, a relation of confidence existed between the owner and the agent. In respect to the compensation to be paid to the agent by the owner, the parties dealt at arm's length. There is nothing in the evidence to take this case out of the general rule that parol evidence will not be received to add to, vary, or dispute the plain and unambiguous terms of a written contract.

Decided June 14, 1917. Action on contract; from Talbot superior court—Judge Munro. December 23, 1916. A. P. Persons, J. H. McGehee, for plaintiff in error. Moore & Pomeroy, Perryman & Perryman, contra.

3. Under the undisputed evidence the plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict against the defendant, and the amount was peculiarly a question for the jury. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, 0. J., and Luhe, J., concur.

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

Related

Slappy v. Georgia Power Company
137 S.E.2d 537 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Hulsey v. Atlanta Transit System, Inc.
104 S.E.2d 94 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Pfeffer v. General Casualty Co. of America
73 S.E.2d 234 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Hartley v. Strowbridge
58 S.E.2d 249 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Edwards v. Wall
113 S.E. 190 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Horsley v. McLeod
100 S.E. 12 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E. 961, 20 Ga. App. 202, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ware-v-ware-harper-gactapp-1917.