Jackson v. Smith, (No. 1,344.)
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | POWELL |
| Citation | 5 Ga.App. 340,102 S.E. 248 |
| Parties | HUMPHRIES & JACKSON . v. SMITH. |
| Decision Date | 22 December 1908 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1,344.) |
102 S.E. 248
5 Ga.App. 340
HUMPHRIES & JACKSON .
v.
SMITH.
(No. 1, 344.)
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Dec. 22, 1908.
1. Brokers (§§ 46, 63*)—Compensation-Sufficiency of Services—"Sale."
Usually the word "sale" denotes a completed mutually binding contract: but under contracts creating the ordinary relationship of principal and real estate broker, and providing commissions for the latter, the broker has made a sale whenever through his influence a person ready, able, and willing to buy on the terms proposed is brought to the principal, though through the fault or disinclination of the principal no actual sale is ever consummated. Usually, however, the broker is not entitled to commissions on sales made by the principal and uninfluenced by anything done by the broker.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. §§ 47, 81, 94-96; Dec. Dig. §§ 46, 03.*
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 7, pp. 6291-0306; vol. 8, p. 7793.]
2. Brokers (§ 60*)—Compensation—Sufficiency of Services.
Where the principal appoints, not a broker, but an exclusive sales agent, and agrees to pay a commission upon "sales, " the agent is not entitled to commissions upon mere executory contracts, but only upon consummated sales.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 91; Dec. Dig. § 60.*]
3. Brokers (§ 50*)^Compensation — Sale Made After Expiration of Contract.
Where a landowner placed his property in the exclusive control of a real estate agent for a limited period, agreeing to pay him a designated commission on all sales, even though the language of the contract should be construed to be broad enough to render the principal liable for commissions upon sales made by himself, the real estate agent cannot recover commissions on a sale made after the expiry of the contract, although during the life of the contract the landowner gave a third person, then neither ready nor willing to buy, an option to purchase the property under which the.property was afterwards sold to him; it appearing that this transaction came about in no wise through the influence of the real estate agent, and was not an attempt on the part of the owner to avoid the effect of this contract, and that the purchaser never became ready or willing to buy before the expiry of the agent's contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 68; Dec. Dig. § 50.*1
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; A. E. Calhoun, Judge.
Action by Humphries & Jackson against P. F. Smith for commissions on a sale of
[102 S.E. 249]real estate. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Owens Johnson and W. E. Talley, for plaintiff in error.
P. F. Smith and Walter McElreath, for defendant in error.
POWELL, J. We find it unnecessary to enter into a discussion of many of the nice questions of law which were argued before us. As presented by the pleadings and the proof thereunder, the case is simple, in that It involves but one question. It is alleged by the plaintiffs and admitted by the defendant that the former were a firm of real estate brokers, and that the defendant owned in the suburbs of Atlanta a tract of 23 acres of land, divided into small lots, which he placed In the hands of the plaintiffs under the following contract: "I have this day placed in the exclusive control of Humphries & Jackson all my property on Lumpkin street, just outside of West End, consisting of twenty-three acres, more or less, for a period of three months from this date. No one shall have a right to sell any of the lots, except the said Humphries & Jackson, without the payment of their commissions. I agree to pay them ten per cent, on all sales. March. 2, 1904. P. F.Smith." It is also alleged, and undisputed, that the plaintiffs advertised the property and made several sales of lots during the life of the contract, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kingston Development Co., Inc. v. Kenerly, No. 49006
...Ga.App. 645, 101 S.E. 775 (1919); Spence v. Walker, 92 [132 Ga.App. 353] Ga.App. 609, 89 S.E.2d 668 (1955); Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340 at 342, 63 S.E. 248 (1908); Doonan v. Ives & Krouse, 73 Ga. 295 (1884).' Such principle does not ipso facto require a reduction in the perc......
-
B & R REALTY, INC. v. Carroll, No. A00A0165.
...162, 332 S.E.2d 920 (1985). 6. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 164(2), 332 S.E.2d 920. 7. Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340, 343(3), 63 S.E. 248 8. Howington v. Farm & Home Realty, 148 Ga. App. 501, 503-504, 251 S.E.2d 591 (1978); Kenney, supra, 120 Ga.App. at 18-19(2)......
-
Reiser v. Jennings, No. 5180.
...Walker v. Russell, 240 Mass. 386, 134 N. E. 388, 390; T. W. Sandford & Co. v. Waring, 201 Ky. 169, 256 S.W. 9, 10; Humphries v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340 (1), 63 S.E. The appellant further asserts that we should render judgment for him because the $500 deposit made by the appellee as above state......
-
T.W. Sandford & Co. v. Waring
...to the owner a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property upon the terms proposed by the former. Humphries v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340, 63 S.E. 248; Steinberg v. Mindlin, 96 N. J. Law, 206, 114 A. 451. An excellent and, we think, correct statement of the law controlling this questi......
-
Kingston Development Co., Inc. v. Kenerly, No. 49006
...Ga.App. 645, 101 S.E. 775 (1919); Spence v. Walker, 92 [132 Ga.App. 353] Ga.App. 609, 89 S.E.2d 668 (1955); Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340 at 342, 63 S.E. 248 (1908); Doonan v. Ives & Krouse, 73 Ga. 295 (1884).' Such principle does not ipso facto require a reduction in the perc......
-
B & R REALTY, INC. v. Carroll, No. A00A0165.
...162, 332 S.E.2d 920 (1985). 6. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Id. at 164(2), 332 S.E.2d 920. 7. Humphries & Jackson v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340, 343(3), 63 S.E. 248 8. Howington v. Farm & Home Realty, 148 Ga. App. 501, 503-504, 251 S.E.2d 591 (1978); Kenney, supra, 120 Ga.App. at 18-19(2)......
-
Reiser v. Jennings, No. 5180.
...Walker v. Russell, 240 Mass. 386, 134 N. E. 388, 390; T. W. Sandford & Co. v. Waring, 201 Ky. 169, 256 S.W. 9, 10; Humphries v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340 (1), 63 S.E. The appellant further asserts that we should render judgment for him because the $500 deposit made by the appellee as above state......
-
T.W. Sandford & Co. v. Waring
...to the owner a purchaser ready, able, and willing to take the property upon the terms proposed by the former. Humphries v. Smith, 5 Ga.App. 340, 63 S.E. 248; Steinberg v. Mindlin, 96 N. J. Law, 206, 114 A. 451. An excellent and, we think, correct statement of the law controlling this questi......