Garrett v. Wall
| Decision Date | 15 February 1923 |
| Docket Number | 13744. |
| Parties | GARRETT v. WALL. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Wall sued Garrett on an oral contract for services rendered, and by his petition as amended alleged in substance as follows Garrett, on or about March 1, 1919, agreed with the plaintiff "that if he, Wall, would induce Frank Darby, or Darby Lumber Company, or any one else, to purchase" certain described sawmill timber belonging to Garrett "at a price to be fixed and agreed upon between said purchaser whoever it might be, and said Garrett, he, Garrett, would pay to said Wall the sum of $1,000 for such services"; that acting under said contract of employment and in compliance with the terms thereof, Wall immediately saw and interested the parties mentioned in a purchase of the property described, and by his efforts induced them to go and see the defendant, "looking to a purchase from said defendant of said saw-mill timber"; and that as a result of such compliance with plaintiff's contract with the defendant the defendant, on or about April 1, 1922, agreed upon and actually consummated with the prospective purchaser thus procured by the plaintiff a contract of sale covering the timber described. The defendant demurred to the petition (the grounds of objection being preserved by exceptions taken pendente lite) because the petition showed that the contract sued on was not in writing, and therefore unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and because it was lacking in certainty and mutuality. A verdict having been rendered in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant excepted to the overruling of his motion for new trial, based on the general grounds, and further complained that the court on its own motion did not submit to the jury the question as to whether the plaintiff had shown by the evidence that the contract had been complied with within a reasonable time. Held:
A contract for the performance of services such as are above set forth does not come within the provisions of the statute of frauds (Civil Code 1910, § 3222 [4]), as constituting a "contract for the sale of lands, or any interest in, or concerning them"; but even if it did, the rule would not be applicable "where there has been performance on one side, accepted by the other in accordance with the contract." Civil Code 1910, § 3223 (2).
"A contract is an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of some specified thing." Civil Code 1910, § 4216. "To constitute a valid contract, there must be parties able to contract, a consideration moving to the contract, the assent of the parties to the terms of the contract, and a subject-matter upon which it can operate." Civil Code, § 4222. While the plaintiff does not bring his suit as a sales broker, who is entitled to commission on the theory of having found a purchaser "ready, willing, and able to buy, and who actually offers to buy on the terms stipulated by the owner," but in this case the subject-matter upon which the agreement operates lies in the agreement based upon the consideration of a sale by the owner of designated property, upon such terms as would be agreeable to the owner, to a person who has been found, interested in the proposition, and sent to the owner as a prospective purchaser, through the efforts of the plaintiff, there exists no legal reason why such a contract for services could not be entered upon, and when it is fully executed according to its terms the owner becomes liable for the compensation provided by the agreement. The evidence authorizes a finding in favor of the plaintiff upon the disputed issues, one of them being whether the offer as made by the owner was spoken seriously or in a spirit of fun and was so understood.
Where a contract fails to state the time within which it must be performed, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial