Roberts v. Mayer
| Decision Date | 13 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | 13471. |
| Citation | 13 S.E.2d 382,191 Ga. 588 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. MAYER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mrs. Evelyn Roberts filed a suit against Mrs. G. M Mayer, seeking specific performance to compel the defendant to convey to the plaintiff a described tract of land in accordance with an alleged contract of sale between them. The defendant filed a general and special demurrer. Before any ruling was made thereon, the plaintiff offered an amendment for the purpose of meeting certain grounds of the demurrer. The court disallowed the amendment, and thereafter sustained the demurrer and dismissed the action. The plaintiff excepted.
As an exhibit to the petition, the plaintiff set forth a copy of the alleged contract of purchase and sale, which appeared to have been signed by both the parties. The contract recited that Mrs. Roberts agreed to purchase from Mrs. Mayer through 'Williams & Bone, Agents,' the property known as 1280 Highland Avenue in the City of Atlanta, more fully described in the contract. The agreed purchase-price was stated as $5,168.75, to be paid as follows: The contract further provided: 'Commission for consummating this sale to be paid by buyer.'
The petition also alleged: After having the title examined, the plaintiff endeavored to get the defendant to meet her at the office of Williams & Bone in the City of Decatur, to complete the sale in accordance with the agreement, but the defendant failed and refused to carry out the terms of said contract, and still fails and refuses to do so. Petitioner is able, ready, and willing to perform the contract on her part, has tendered, now tenders and continues to tender the sum of $1,000 in cash according to the terms thereof. The proffered amendment was as follows:
'1. By adding, after the second paragraph of plaintiff's petition, a subparagraph to be numbered 2A, the following that the loan referred to above was payable to Cheeves-Green Enterprises, a Georgia corporation, and was a loan deed given for the sum of $4,750, and which at the date of the contract of purchase had been reduced to the sum of three thousand nine hundred eighteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($3,918.75) as stipulated in the said contract; that the loan deed was transferred by Cheeves-Green Enterprises to the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, on July 1st, 1936, for the expressed consideration of ten ($10) dollars and other valuable consideration, the said transfer being recorded in deed book 1548 at page 535, and was filed July 15th, 1936, and recorded July 21st, 1936; that the original loan deed was recorded in book 1621 at page 23, after being filed for record on July 10th, 1936, and was recorded July 21st, 1936. That the description in both the loan and in the contract made with your petitioner by the defendant is the same, except that in the contract made with petitioner the property was described as No. 1280 Highland Avenue, whereas in the loan deed it is described as property known as 1308 (formerly 1280) Highland Avenue.
'2. Petitioner amends paragraph 9 of her petition by adding the following: After the word contract in the last line of said paragraph, that it was understood and agreed by the parties to this contract, your petitioner and the defendant, that the sum of one thousand ($1,000) dollars to be paid to the defendant herein, and at the time of closing the trade, the additional sum of two hundred fifty ($250) dollars was to be paid by the plaintiff to the real-estate agents, Williams & Bone, Decatur, Georgia, for consummating the sale of said property, and which said two hundred fifty ($250) dollars and the loan assumed of three thousand nine hundred eighteen dollars and seventy-five cents ($3,918.75) together with the one thousand ($1,000) dollars cash payment to the defendant, made the total price to be paid five...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Allen
...an actual unconditional tender thereof, or that such a tender had been waived. Terry v. Keim, 122 Ga. 43 (49 S.E. 736); Roberts v. Mayer, 191 Ga. 588(1) (13 S.E.2d, 382). "2. While under the provisions of the Code, § 20-1105, the rule of the common law that an actual production of the money......
-
Durham v. Crawford
... ... Clower v. Fleming, supra, 81 Ga. 253, 7 S.E. 278; ... Baldwin v. McLendon, 164 Ga. 387(2), 390, 138 S.E ... 775; Roberts v. Mayer, 191 Ga. 588(2), 590, 591, 13 ... S.E.2d 382, and cit.; Holland v. Mutual Fertilizer ... Co., 8 Ga.App. 714(2, 3), 717, 70 S.E. 151; Manry ... ...
-
Burnam v. Wilkerson
...an actual unconditional tender thereof, or that such a tender had been waived. Terry v. Keim, 122 Ga. 43, 49 S.E. 736; Roberts v. Mayer, 191 Ga. 588(1), 13 S.E.2d 382.' 'While, under the provisions of the Code, § 20-1105, the rule of the common law that an actual production of the money mus......
-
Irvin v. Locke
...183. The principle just stated in no wise conflicts with the ruling by this court in Roberts v. Mayer, 191 Ga. 588, 13 S.E.2d 382. The Roberts case went off on The court held that, since the petition (contrary to that in the instant case) failed to allege either a valid tender, or facts suc......