Ansley v. Green

• Decision Date: 05 November 1888
• Citation: Ansley v. Green, 82 Ga. 181, 7 S. E. 921 (Ga. 1888)
• Parties: Ansley v. Green.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

7 S.E. 921

(82 Ga. 181)

Ansley

v.Green.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

November 5, 1888.

1.Evidence—Parol to Explain Whiting—Auctioneer's Memorandum.

Code Ga.§§ 2757, 3801, making parol evidence admissible to explain ambiguous and incomplete written contracts, the following is a sufficient auctioneer's memorandum of the sale of a house and lot: "Lovely Decatur home; Mrs. Prank J. Ansley, May 22d, 1886; Dr. Green, $2,475."

2. Same—Pleading.

A declaration in an action for breach of the contract, evidenced by such memorandum, is not demurrable though in the name of "Mrs. Alice McPherson Ansley, " while in the memorandum of sale the name was "Mrs. Prank J. Ansley."

3.Vendor and Vendee—Auction Sale—Liability of Vendee.

The purchaser of a house and lot at public auction, who has refused to comply with his bid, may be sued for damages by the vendor, where the property, after due notice, has been resold at auction for a less sum.

Error from superior court, Fulton county; Marshall J. Clarke, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Frank J. Ansley against H. H. Green to recover damages occasioned by the refusal of defendant to comply with the bid made by him at an auction sale of land of plaintiff.Plaintiff appeals from an order sustaining defendant's demurrer to the declaration.The doctrine of Mohr v. Dillon, 5 S. E. Rep. 770, referred to in the opinion, is thus expressed in the syllabus: "Under Code Ga. §§ 2757,3801, making parol evidence admissible to explain all ambiguous and incomplete written contracts, an incomplete auctioneer's memorandum of sale of land may be explained by showing the boundaries of the land referred to in the written memorandum, and which of the parties named was the owner, and which the purchaser, of the land."

Candler, Thompson & Candler, for plaintiff in error.Hulsey & Bateman, for defendant in error.

Simmons, J.This was an action brought by Mrs. Ansley against Green for damages, wherein she alleged that on the 22d of May, 1886, through her agents, Frierson & Scott, auctioneers, she exposed for sale at public outcry, to the highest bidder, a certain house and lot in the town of Decatur, described in the declaration; that the terms of sale were published and announced at the sale, before the bidding commenced; and that the property was then and there sold to H. H. Green for the sum of $2,475, he being the highest and best bidder; that, when said Green made his bid, he had in his hands one of the printed hand-bills distributed at the sale, giving notice thereof, and describing the property and terms of sale, a copy of which hand-bill is made a part of the declaration; that said bid was accepted by said auctioneers and agents of the plaintiff, and an entry and memorandum thereof then and there made on their books of sale, as follows: "Lovely Decatur home; Mrs. Frank J. Ansley, May 22nd, 1886; Dr. Green, $2,475."The declaration further alleged that after the property was knocked down to said Green, as aforesaid, he refused to comply with the terms of the sale, whereupon the plaintiff gave him notice that, unless he did comply therewith, she would proceed to resell the property at his risk, and, the defendant still refusing to comply with his contract, she did, within a reasonable time thereafter, to-wit, on the 2d day of August, 1886, after proper advertising and notice to Green, proceed to resell the property; that said last sale was a fair one, and that the property was bid off by one Crockett, he being the highest and best bidder, for the sumof $1,825, being $650 less than Green had contracted to pay therefor.To this declaration the defendant filed the following demurrer(1) that said declaration on its face shows only a parol agreement, if it shows any agreement at all, as to the sale of said property, and that it does not set up or show anything that takes the case out of the statute of frauds; (2) such suits can only be maintained...