Loughman v. Shine, 48380
| Decision Date | 10 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48380,No. 3,48380,3 |
| Parties | Massey LOUGHMAN v. Sidney S. SHINE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
A. Ed Lane, Decatur, for appellant.
Arthur P. Tranakos, Martin S. Jackel, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Sidney Shine had a customer who desired to obtain a financial guarantee bond. He made a number of efforts to obtain one for the customer, but failed, and then referred the customer to Massey Loughman, who was a realty broker associated with Fred N. Brown Associates. Loughman succeeded in getting the bond and received a commission for his services of $22,500. Brown required payment of one-half of the commission to it. Shine demanded half of the commission for his referral services, which Loughman refused to pay, and Shine sued him.
Shine contended that under his oral contract with Loughman the commission on the bond, if obtained, was to be split equally between them, and that if Loughman was obligated, or should incur any obligation to pay any part of the commission to another, it would come out of Loughman's half, and that likewise if Shine were obligated to another in connection with the matter, or should incur any expense, it would come out of his half of the commission. Loughman contended otherwise, urging that the agreement was to divide the net commission equally between them.
The matter was tried beofre a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $11,250 principal and $1,100 interest. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. An oral contract is sufficient to support the action. Norwood v. Robie, 102 Ga.App. 206(1), 115 S.E.2d 729.
2. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what the terms of the contract were, making an issue for resolution by the jury. There is evidence to support the verdict, and the general grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.
3. In the charge the court instructed that
Error is enumerated on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, s. 54764
...as to what the specific terms of an oral contract are. Venable v. Block, 138 Ga.App. 215, 217, 225 S.E.2d 755; Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga.App. 600(3), 200 S.E.2d 326. An employee, generally, has a property right in his contract of employment (written or verbal, even if at the will of the emp......
-
Venable v. Block
...that of consideration, this is a question for the jury-all other essentials of a valid oral contract being present. Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga.App. 600(2), 200 S.E.2d 326; Gray v. Plummer, 87 Ga.App. 331, 333, 73 S.E.2d 569. We find all essentials of an oral contract to be present-with only ......
-
Spoon v. Herndon
...must be submitted to a jury for resolution. Frey v. Friendly Motors, Inc., 129 Ga.App. 636, 638, 200 S.E.2d 467; Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga.App. 600(2), 200 S.E.2d 326. "It is error to direct a verdict unless the evidence demands the particular verdict and fails to disclose any material issu......
-
Farris v. Pazol, 66062
...agreement relating to the sale of the subject property, the issue should have been submitted to the jury. Loughman v. Shine, 129 Ga.App. 600(2), 200 S.E.2d 326. The trial court read Miller v. Adams-Cates Co., 64 Ga.App. 858, 14 S.E.2d 220 as support for the directed verdict. However, in Mil......