Bush v. Mattox
| Decision Date | 23 July 1902 |
| Citation | 42 S.E. 240,116 Ga. 42 |
| Parties | BUSH v. MATTOX. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a lessee of convicts, who has a right to sublet them to other persons, employs another to assist him in procuring some one to sublet them, and agrees in writing to pay to the person so employed, for his services, all excess over $14 per month for each convict sublet, and with the assistance of the intermediary the original lessee makes a contract subletting the convicts at $16 per month, and subsequently, without the knowledge of the intermediary, releases the sublessee, and voluntarily reduces the amount from $16 to $14, the intermediary is entitled to recover on his contract.
2. The declaration in the present case, properly construed constitutes a suit upon the contract for damages for the failure to enforce the sublease as made, and collect the full amount due thereon, and turn over to the plaintiff his share of the proceeds.
Error from superior court, Elbert county; H. M. Holden, Judge.
Action by E. B. Bush against R. C. Mattox, administratrix. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
W. D Tutt & Son, for plaintiff in error.
Jos. N Worley, for defendant in error.
The state of Georgia leased 50 convicts to Mattox, who wished to sublet them. He went to Miller county, where Dr. Bush resided, and asked Bush to assist him in subletting these convicts; telling Bush that he wished to get $14 per month for each of them, and agreeing in writing to pay Bush "all above fourteen dollars per month,--that is, paid Mattox for said fifty convicts," the consideration being that Bush should assist him in hiring out the convicts, and should keep a general watch over them and the financial standing of the person to whom they were hired. Sharpe was the owner of a turpentine business, and desired to hire some convicts. Bush introduced him to Mattox, and he agreed to hire the convicts provided his attorney advised him that the contract would be legal. The price of $16 per month was agreed upon, Bush taking part in the conversation which led up to this agreement. Then Bush, Mattox, and Sharpe went to Bainbridge, in Decatur county where Sharpe was informed by his counsel that the contract would be legal, but would have to be approved by the state prison commission. Sharpe and Mattox then entered into a written contract whereby Sharpe agreed to pay Mattox $16 per capita per month for the hire of the 50 convicts. Sharpe appointed one of his attorneys at law, Nussbaum, his attorney in fact, to accompany Mattox to Atlanta to get the prison commission to approve the contract. For some reason, the original contract was not presented to the commission. The evidence shows that the chairman of the commission had, in a conversation with the parties, remarked that the commission did not favor putting convicts on turpentine farms, on account of the increase in the expense for guards. Nussbaum suggested that Sharpe would pay the increased expense, and the chairman then said that the commission would probably approve the contract. A new contract was entered into between Mattox and Nussbaum, the latter acting for Sharpe, whereby the price to be paid was reduced to $14.50. The original contract was never presented to the commission, but this new contract was presented, and received the approval of the commission. Subsequently Mattox voluntarily released Sharpe from a portion of this obligation, by reducing the agreed price from $14.50 to $14. All of this was done without the consent or knowledge of Bush. Under the contract between Bush and Mattox, Bush was not only to assist in hiring out the convicts, but was to keep watch over them, and keep informed as to the financial standing and credit of the sublessee. The evidence shows that Bush did this. It also appears that Sharpe paid Mattox $14 per month for each convict. When the payment became due, Bush demanded of Mattox that the latter pay him $2 per capita per month, claiming that this was the excess over $14. Mattox refused to pay him anything,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odell v. Wessinger
...than the agreed price, liability would not have been defeated. See Odell v. Dozier, 104 Ga. 203 (2), 204, 30 S.E. 813; Bush v. Mattox, 116 Ga. 42 (1), 42 S.E. 240; Gresham v. Connally, 114 Ga. 906, 909, 41 S.E. 42; Williams v. Selph & Daniels, 29 Ga.App. 38, 113 S.E. 245; Graves v. Hunnicut......
-
Odell v. Wessinger
... ... less than the agreed price, liability would not have been ... defeated. See Odell v. Dozier, 104 Ga. 203 (2), 204, ... 30 S.E. 813; Bush v. Mattox, 116 Ga. 42 (1), 42 S.E ... 240; Gresham v. Connally, 114 Ga. 906, 909, 41 S.E ... 42; Williams v. Selph & Daniels, 29 Ga.App. 38, 113 ... ...
-
Miller v. Adams-Cates Co.
...who was employed to assist in the sale is against the first broker who is his employer." 12 C.J.S., Brokers, 175, § 80. In Bush v. Mattox, 116 Ga. 42, 42 S.E. 240, involved a lease contract, the court in headnote 1 made the following ruling: "Where a lessee of convicts, who has a right to s......
-
Miller v. Adams-cates Co
...who was employed to assist in the sale is against the first broker who is his employer." 12 C.J.S., Brokers, 175, § 80. In Bush v. Mattox, 116 Ga. 42, 42 S.E. 240, which involved a lease contract, the court in headnote 1 made the following ruling: "Where a lessee of convicts, who has a righ......