Watson v. Brightwell
| Citation | 60 Ga. 213 |
| Parties | Watson. v. Brightwell. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
Principal and agent. Contracts. Pleadings. New trial. Before Judge BartlETT. Jasper Superior Court. April Adjourned Term, 1877.
Reported in the opinion.
Key & Preston; Jackson & Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error,
A. Reese; F. Jordan, for defendant.
Brightwell sued Watson on a contract for services in selling the land of the latter, and recovered seven hundred dollars— it being five per cent. on the price for which the land was sold. Watson made a motion for a new trial, it was overruled and he excepted.
1. One ground of error, alleged in several grounds of the motion for a new trial, is to the effect, that as Watson hired the plaintiff to sell his land, the contract of hire should be in writing, and the court charged that it need not be. If an agent be constituted to convey land—to make a deed thereto—there must be a power in writing so to convey by deed; but if one employ another to sell land—to procure a purchaser therefor, he him-self expecting to make the deed thereto, such a rule is inapplicable, and such a contract need not be in writing. *2. Another error alleged is, that the court charged that if Watson aided and assisted Brightwell in the sale of the land, or rather, if Brightwell aided and assisted Watson, Brightwell could recover, and refused to charge that proof of a sale by Watson to Boyd, the purchaser, and not by the plaintiff, Brightwell, to Boyd, by competent evidence would not entitle plaintiff to recover.
The judge certifies that he charged upon these subjects that they must find from the evidence whether plaintiff and defendant made a contract relative to the sale of the land, and if so, what was the contract? If the jury should find that no contract was entered into for the sale of the land, or that the contract at one time entered into at a specified price was rescinded, and no other contract made between the parties, then the jury should find for defendant; but if the jury should find from the evidence that plaintiff was employed by defendant to aid him in disposing of his land by his influence in procuring a purchaser to buy the land, and that plaintiff did so, then plaintiff could recover the amount agreed upon.
The declaration alleged that the defendant agreed with the plaintiff that if he would find a purchaser for the land and sell it for him, he would pay him for his services five per cent. upon such sum as plaintiff might obtain for the land.
The proof of plaintiff was to the effect, that at first the contract limited him to $20.00 per acre, but afterwards he found that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial