Garber v. Yeend
Decision Date | 11 May 1944 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 218. |
Citation | 17 So.2d 875,245 Ala. 509 |
Parties | GARBER v. YEEND. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Jesse F. Hogan, of Mobile, for the petition.
Wm G. Caffey, of Mobile, opposed.
There is no provision in the statutes, § 298 et seq., Title 46 Code of 1940, requiring a real estate broker suing for commissions to allege and prove that he is licensed. Such a provision does appear in the statutes of some other states. Obviously, decisions in those states, construing the statute are not persuasive here. We agree that the failure of the real estate agent to procure a license is a defense which must be proved by the defendant, where it is not disclosed by the testimony of the plaintiff. Knight v. Watson, 221 Ala. 69, 127 So. 841; Marx v. Lining, 231 Ala 445, 165 So. 207. In line with our decisions, however, this is a defense which need not be specially pleaded, but may be shown under the general issue.
* * * "Shearin v. Pizitz, 208 Ala. 244, 94 So. 92, 93.
In dealing with a defense similar in principle, this court said:
* * * "Wood et al. v. Traders' Securities Co., 221 Ala. 629, 130 So. 398, 400.
See also Fidelity-Phenix Fire Ins....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Merchants Nat. Bank of Mobile v. Cotnam
...policy; but under our system special pleading was not necessary to do so. Shearin v. Pizitz, 208 Ala. 244, 94 So. 92; Garber v. Yeend, 245 Ala. 509, 17 So.2d 875. The questions of fact submitted to the jury were (1) whether such a contract as claimed was in fact made; and (2) whether any pa......
- Freed v. Sallade