Morris v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 23 October 1911 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3,178.) |
| Citation | 72 S.E. 444,9 Ga.App. 848 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. JACKSON. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Brokers (§ 50*) — Sale op Realty —Right
to Commissions.
There being no evidence of bad faith or fraud on the part of the owner in selling the property, after the expiration of the agency contract, to a person with whom the agent had been negotiating prior thereto, and it further appearing that the sale was made for a sum less than that named in the agency contract, as to which time was of the essence, the agent was not entitled to commissions on the transaction, even though the sale was made by the owner to the same person and at the price offered by him prior to the expiration of the agency contract.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Brokers, Cent. Dig. § 68; Dec. Dig. § 50.*]
Error from City Court of Atlanta; A. E. Calhoun, Judge.
Action by T. W. Jackson against J. M. Morris. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
A real estate agent sued the owner of a farm for $300, commission on a sale of the farm. The jury returned a verdict for $250, and the defendant moved for a new trial, on the general grounds, also assigning error on one excerpt from the Judge's charge. The
material facts as settled by the verdict are that the owner listed the farm with the agent, agreeing to give him exclusive control of the property for 120 days, to pay him a commission of 5 per cent, on the purchase price, and further providing that if the owner "should, after the expiration of the 120 days, sell said property to the [agent's] customer or client, direct or through any one else, " the agent should nevertheless have his commission. The contract was renewed successively, so as to make it expire on January 1, 1909. The agent put a "For Sale" sign on the property. One Maddox saw the sign and went to Haynes, the tenant in possession, fouud out the name of the owner, and went directly to him. The owner then went with Maddox to see the property, but no trade was consummated. About 60 days later the agent called on Maddox and again interested him in the property, and finally obtained from him an offer to give a piece of city property and $1,000 "to boot" for the farm. This offer was communicated to the owner of the farm, and was by him declined. This happened in December, 1908. Subsequently the owner notified the agent that the property would be taken out of his hands on January 1, 1909, which was done, and during February, 1909, the owner sold the farm to Maddox on the same terms which he had declined when dealing through the agent, to wit, for the city property and $1,000. The price at which the farm was originally listed was $6,000, $3,000 cash, and the remainder in deferred payments, with interest at the rate of 7 per cent, per annum. The value of the city property, which, in addition to the $1,000 cash, the owner received, was estimated at $4,000; so that he obtained only the equivalent of $5,000 for his farm, or $1,000 less than the...
To continue reading
Request your trial