Shives v. Young
| Decision Date | 21 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 32746,No. 2,32746,2 |
| Citation | 81 Ga.App. 30,57 S.E.2d 874 |
| Parties | SHIVES v. YOUNG |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The verdict was within the range of the correct measure of damage and the evidence authorized the verdict.
2. Since the entire charge of the court is not specified as a part of the record or set out in the bill of exceptions, this court will presume that the court charged the jury correctly if the contrary is not manifest from the exception taken.
3. Special grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for a new trial are treated as abandoned.
John L. H. Young brought an action for damages against R. M. Shives for an alleged breach of contract. The material allegations of the petition, as amended, were substantially as follows. On or about October 1, 1948, the plaintiff listed a house, which he owned, with Mrs. E. B. Smith Realth Company for sale. On October 19, 1948, the defendant signed a contract to purchase the property for the sum of $16,200. The contract specified that the sale of the property was to be consummated on or before November 10, 1948. The contract was signed for the plaintiff by his wife under a general power of attorney on October 19, 1948. As part payment of the purchase price the defendant on that date gave his personal check in the amount of $500, but this check upon presentation at the bank was reutrned as there were no funds in the bank belonging to the defendant when the check was presented. On November 3, 1948, the plaintiff prepared a warranty deed to the property, conveying it to the defendant, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale; and on that date and at numerous times thereafter, he tendered the deed to the defendant, but the defendant at all times has refused and declined to comply with the terms of the contract. The fair market price of the property on November 10 was $14,500. By reason of the foregoing facts the defendant has damaged the plaintiff in the amount of $1,700, which represents the difference between the contract price and the fair market value of the property. The defendant filed his answer and set up that the plaintiff's agent, Mrs. E. B. Smith, was notified orally that his offer had been withdrawn before it was accepted by the plaintiff. On the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the sum of $730. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the general grounds and three special grounds. His motion was overruled and he excepted.
Jess H. Watson, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
George A. Haas, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
1. The true measure of damages in a suit brought by the vendor against the purchaser for the latter's refusal to perform his part of an agreement to buy land is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the land at the time of the breach. Cowdery v. Greenlee, 126 Ga. 786(3), 55 S.E. 918, 8 L.R.A.,N.S., 137; Killarney Realty Co. v. Wimpey, 30 Ga.App. 390(6), 118 S.E. 581; King v. Brice, 145 Ga. 65, 88 S.E. 960; Gilbert v. Cherry, 57 Ga. 128; Brooks v. Miller, 103 Ga. 712 (3), 30 S.E. 630. There was ample evidence to authorize the jury to find that on October 19, 1949, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract of purchase and sale of the plaintiff's house; that on that date the defendant made an offer to purchase which was in writing and which was accepted by the plaintiff, through his wife, acting under a power of attorney from him; that one of the special stipulations of the written contract was that the transaction should be completed on or before November 10; that the defendant before and after that date refused to accept the deed to the property tendered by the plaintiff, or to accept the property; and, that, therefore, the defendant breached the contract as of November 10; that the extension of time given by the plaintiff to the defendant within which to complete the transaction was merely an indulgence on the plaintiff's part and the extension was without consideration and in no way altered the respective responsibilities of the parties under the contract, or changed the effective date of the breach; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner Brd. System Inc v. Mcdavid, A09A2314.
...amount paid is evidence of the value, but ... it is not conclusive of the value as it was represented to be”); Shives v. Young, 81 Ga.App. 30, 32(1), 57 S.E.2d 874 (1950) (concluding that in light of all of the evidence-including the contract price, sales price, and estimated fair market va......
-
Southeastern Land Fund, Inc. v. Real Estate World, Inc.
...is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the buyer's breach. Shives v. Young, 81 Ga.App. 30, 57 S.E.2d 874 (1950). If the non-breaching seller sues for actual damages, the earnest money then becomes a fund out of which those damages ar......
-
Russell v. State
...109.' Toney v. State, 69 Ga.App. 331(6), 334, 25 S.E.2d 85, 87; Reeves v. State, 78 Ga.App. 402, 403, 50 S.E.2d 708; Shives v. Young, 81 Ga.App. 30, 33, 57 S.E.2d 874. The assignment of error in this ground is without The superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari for any reaso......
-
Cameron v. Frazier
...realty is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the breach. Shives v. Young, 81 Ga.App. 30, 57 S.E.2d 874 (1950). There is no evidence of record to support the award of $5,000 to appellee under the application of this measure of damage......