Adair Realty Co. v. Wellman
| Citation | 232 S.E.2d 571,141 Ga.App. 101 |
| Decision Date | 04 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 53001 and 53002,No. 2,s. 53001 and 53002,2 |
| Parties | ADAIR REALTY COMPANY v. T. M. WELLMAN. T. M. WELLMAN v. ADAIR REALTY COMPANY |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Jones, Bird & Howell, Earle B. May, Jr., Judson Graves, Atlanta, for appellant.
Barwick, Bentley & Binford, Thomas S. Bentley, Gary L. Searcrest, Atlanta, for appellee.
Thomas M. Wellman was employed as a real estate agent by Adair Realty Company. Wellman's responsibilities consisted of locating and securing, under contracts, large tracts of undeveloped property which exhibited potential for future business development. He was to receive no salary but real estate commissions would be divided 60% to the agent and 40% to Adair on sales generally paying 10% commission to the broker. In the event a purchaser could not be found by a sales representative, Adair had in its organization an investment expert as to syndication of property; and if the services of this expert were used in the sale of property Adair would generally receive 40% of the commission, the agent and the investment expert would split the remaining 60%-55% to the agent and 45% to the investment expert.
Wellman obtained for Adair the right to sell property having considerable potential known as the Ewing property, which later required syndication through Adair's investment expert. Wellman was not responsible for selling the property, although he did provide certain services to the expert who was to find investors to purchase the property in question. A sales contract was entered with the sellers, the purchaser being Orchard Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Adair. This contract did not provide for a commission in the negotiation of this contract as no broker was shown to be involved therein. Orchard Corporation then purchased the property. Adair was unable to obtain a purchaser or purchasers, and finally it was purchased by officers and employees of Adair, along with another investor, from Orchard Corporation. In the meantime, Wellman had terminated his employment with Adair. However, at the time of the sale of the Ewing tract to the officers and employees and the other investor, no commission was paid on the purchase, and Wellman did not receive any amount for his services rendered to the company in the sale of the Ewing property.
Wellman sued Adair and Orchard Corporation (which was later dismissed as a defendant) in two counts. Count 1 sought commissions earned plus expenses of litigation. Count 2 sought the reasonable value of his services on a quantum meruit basis plus expenses of litigation due to the defendant's bad faith in being stubbornly litigious and having caused him unnecessary trouble and expense.
At the trial of the case before a jury Adair moved for directed verdict on several grounds which was overruled, and the court allowed this issue to be determined by the jury. The jury awarded plaintiff $32,500 as to Count 2 (quantum meruit) and in addition awarded $7,500 expenses of litigation. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for a new trial. The motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was granted with respect to the expenses of litigation ($7,500), and the judgment was modified accordingly. Motion for new trial was denied, and defendant appeals. Plaintiff cross appeals as to the granting of the motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict relative to the expenses of litigation. Held:
1. Ordinarily when one renders services valuable to another, which the latter accepts, a promise is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof. An action to recover same is one upon quantum meruit. Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 581, 584, 16 S.E. 349.
2. Where there is in existence an express contract of employment, this would bar recovery in an action in quantum meruit. Thomas McDonald & Co. v. Elliott, 92 Ga.App. 409, 88 S.E.2d 440; Ford v. Harden, 94 Ga.App. 902(4), 96 S.E.2d 617; Davenport v. Pope, 96 Ga.App. 799, 101 S.E.2d 614. But if work has been received and is performed not necessarily in accord with the contract and the employer has in fact been benefited by the work, the employee is entitled to the reasonable value of the services rendered, which means value to the employer rather than the result to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griner v. Foskey, 61901
...in this context means value to the person receiving the service rather than to the one performing it. Adair Realty Co. v. Wellman, 141 Ga.App. 101, 103(2), 232 S.E.2d 571 (1977); Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Lundeen, 145 Ga.App. 672, 674 et cit., 244 S.E.2d 622 (1978). Assuming that there had been......
-
Fonda Corp. v. Southern Sprinkler Co., Inc.
...is implied to pay the reasonable value thereof, and an action to recover the same is one of quantum meruit. Adair Realty Co. v. Wellman, 141 Ga.App. 101, 232 S.E.2d 571; First National Bank of Vidalia v. McNatt, 141 Ga.App. 6, 232 S.E.2d 356; Martin v. Hendrix, Waddell, Martin & Co., 140 Ga......
-
Starling v. Housing Authority of City of Atlanta, 63325
...[Cits.]" Fonda Corp. v. Southern Sprinkler Co., 144 Ga.App. 287, 292(4), 241 S.E.2d 256 (1977). See also Adair Real. Co. v. Wellman, 141 Ga.App. 101, 103(2), 232 S.E.2d 571 (1977); Brumby v. Smith & Plaster Co., 123 Ga.App. 443(1), 181 S.E.2d 303 (1971). The evidence in the instant case eli......
-
Hampton v. McCord, s. 52952 and 52953
... ... See generally Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425, 153 A.2d 321 ... 3. The ... ...