Keith v. Byram
| Decision Date | 18 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 43840,43840,3 |
| Citation | 163 S.E.2d 753,118 Ga.App. 364 |
| Parties | Luther KEITH et al. v. George N. BYRAM |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Henry N. Payton, Newnan, for appellants.
Sanders, Mottola & Haugen, Charles Van S. Mottola, Newnan, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
George N. Byram sought from Luther and Ophelia Keith the amount of his sales commission under an exclusive real estate listing agreement, alleging that within the period of this contract he procured a purchaser who obtained an option from the defendants for purchase of the lands, and that when the purchaser elected to exercise the option the defendants refused to sell. The lands are described in the listing agreement as follows:
The agent had the right to sell the property during a 60-day period at $122 per acre on a commission of $12 per acre of the sale price. Following this are provisions for a commission based on a selling price agreeable to the seller but other than the stipulated price. Finally, the agreement provides that the 'Agent shall have exclusive listing during the above stated period and should seller or anyone else sell the property during the listing period or should seller refuse to sell if agent has a ready buyer during listing period, then agent shall be entitled to his commission on above stated sale price.' The defendants filed no defensive pleadings and the trial judge, acting without a jury, rendered judgment for the plaintiff for $5,208, plus interest and costs. The defendants moved to set aside the judgment, and appeal from the order overruling this motion. Held:
The petition contains a short and plain statement of the basis for the claim and a demand for judgment, all that is required under the law, including, in addition to the listing agreement, a statement of the existence of an option contract, the election of a prospective purchaser to exercise the option, and the refusal of the defendants to sell, and the defendants, having filed no responsive defensive pleadings, admit all allegations except the amount claimed as damages. Section 8, Civil Practice Act; Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 619; 1967, pp. 226, 230; Code Ann. § 81A-108. The description of the property in the listing agreement is adequate to show an enforceable agreement, for all that need appear is sufficient information to identify the property as that in fact which the defendants listed with the agent for sale, and on which the agent could act in offering the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redan Shops, LLC v. FSFP Atlanta, LLC
... ... response[;]" thus, the damages are liquidated) (emphasis ... supplied); see also Keith v. Byram, 118 Ga.App. 364, ... 364-365 (163 S.E.2d 753) (1968) (finding, in appeal from ... motion to set aside, that damages were ... ...
-
Hazlett & Hancock Const. Co. v. Virgil Womack Const. Co., 72593
...defendant was deemed to have admitted the indebtedness, which in essence was established before suit was filed. In Keith v. Byram, 118 Ga.App. 364, 163 S.E.2d 753 (1968), a suit for a real estate commission under an exclusive listing agreement, the court concluded that it was liquidated bec......
-
Keith v. Byram, 25377
...This ground was not included in their motion to set aside the judgment, the overruling of which was affirmed in Keith v. Byram, 118 Ga.App. 364, 163 S.E.2d 753, nor could it have been included, since it was not a nonamendable defect 'which does appear upon the face of the record or pleading......
-
Morris v. SAVANNAH VALLEY REALTY, INC.
...and punctuation omitted.) Intl. Business, etc., v. Archer Motor Co., 187 Ga.App. 97, 100, 369 S.E.2d 268 (1988). Keith v. Byram, 118 Ga.App. 364, 365, 163 S.E.2d 753 (1968). "[A]ll that is necessary to recover on [a listing agreement] is to allege and prove that the property attempted to be......