Dixon v. Rollins
| Decision Date | 08 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 44474,44474,3 |
| Citation | 120 Ga.App. 557,171 S.E.2d 646 |
| Parties | Hugh M. DIXON v. O. Wayne ROLLINS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Carl K. Nelson, Jr., Dublin, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, D. R. Cumming, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Kaler, Karesh & Rubin, Martin H. Rubin, Atlanta, Martin, Snow, Grant & Napier, George C. Grant, Macon, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an action in two counts to recover the amount of a fee allegedly earned as the result of a real estate transaction.
On February 19, 1964, the original owner, Rollins, Promised in writing to pay Dixon, the plaintiff, $90,000 to 'do all things necessary to consummate a sale of the Pamlico tract (located in North Carolina) at an acceptable price to a satisfactory buyer to whom the property has not previously been submitted. * * *' After granting an option to a party not here involved, which expired, the defendant Rollins thereafter conveyed the real estate to a corporation which he owned, which is not named as a defendant, and on February 1, 1967, this corporation and the corporate holder of a renewed option, a defendant, conveyed the property to the corporate transferee of the option, also a defendant, without any recognition of the entitlement of the plaintiff to any fee for any services rendered, although recognizing the entitlement of others.
Two individuals, Webb and Peake, are shown to have an interest in the transaction. Under the plaintiff's version of events preceding the closing he was the first person to inform Webb (which Webb admits) and Peake about the property, while the three were together on a European tour in 1965. He again contacted Webb in Georgia, and not later than the latter part of December, 1966, Webb learned that he might claim a commission. Webb advised him not to intervene before closing, and promised to inform Peake, but did nothing in this respect. Webb is a stockholder and president of the present owner, Pamlico, Inc., which was incorporated in December, 1966, to purchase the tract. In 1966 he also became executive vice president and manager of the North Carolina division for the other corporate defendant, Georgia Timberlands, Inc., of which Peake is president and principal stockholder. Peake is also chairman of the board and a stockholder in Pamlico, Inc.
The original owner, Rollins, admits the written promise to pay Dixon a fee, but his testimony is uncontroverted that he never knew of any further connection or participation by Dixon until Dixon claimed the promised fee after the sale was completed.
Dixon resides in this State and operated from a business address within the State, but is not and has never been a licensed real estate broker or salesman in any State, and obtained the promise from Rollins as a result of discussions with a Florida broker with whom Rollins had listed the property, who informed Rollins by telephone of the plaintiff's desire to assist in selling the property for a fee.
In Count 1 Dixon seeks to recover the amount of the fee based on an alleged conspiracy between the defendants to deprive him of the fee, and in Count 2 he seeks to recover the amount of the fee from Rollins individually. Dixon appeals from the grant of an adverse summary judgment. Held:
1. Since April 1, 1956, it has been 'unlawful * * * to engage in the business or capacity, either directly or indirectly, of a real estate broker * * * within any county in this State, without first obtaining a license * * *.' subject to certain exceptions not here applicable. Code § 84-1401 as amended; Ga.L.1956, p. 404; Ga.L.1965, pp. 629, 630. Under the law in effect in 1964 the term "real estate broker' means any person * * * who, for another and for a fee, commission or other valuable consideration: (a) Sells,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank of New Mexico v. Freedom Homes, Inc.
...and decisions, accords with decisions in other jurisdictions. Wegmann v. Mannino, 253 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1958); Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga.App. 557, 171 S.E.2d 646 (1969); Bradley v. Banks, 260 So.2d 256 (Fla.App. 1972); Isaquirre v. Echevarria, 96 Idaho 641, 534 P.2d 471 (1975); Wright v. Sm......
-
Mathews v. Greiner
...required under the terms of this Chapter.' Code Ann. § 84-1413 (Ga.L.1929, pp. 316, 319). Our court has heretofore in Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga.App. 557, 171 S.E.2d 646 and Beets v. Padgett, 123 Ga.App. 68, 179 S.E.2d 560 expressly ruled that a broker doing business in Georgia without the re......
-
Atlanta Apartment Investments, Inc. v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...[as amended, now OCGA § 43-40-30]. This would apply even if the claim were on a quantum meruit basis. [Cit.]" Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga.App. 557, 558(1), 559, 171 S.E.2d 646. See also Padgett v. Silver Lake Park Corp., 168 Ga. 759, 149 S.E. 180. Consequently, the trial court in the case sub ......
-
Beets v. Padgett, 45720
...v. Tucker, 118 Ga.App. 695, 698, 165 S.E.2d 459; Household Finance Corp. v. Johnson, 119 Ga.App. 49, 165 S.E.2d 864; Dixon v. Rollins, 120 Ga.App. 557, 559, 171 S.E.2d 646. 2. The defendant also contends the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. With this contention we cannot ......