Williams v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 42874
| Decision Date | 05 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 42874,42874,3 |
| Citation | 116 Ga.App. 253,157 S.E.2d 166 |
| Parties | L. L. WILLIAMS v. NORTHSIDE REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC., et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the petition was brought on a breach of contract of sale by a real estate brokerage firm for failing to turn over to the seller the overage of earnest money paid in after deduction of real estate commissions, and the proof showed that the defendants had never received any money, but had only a check which was to be held until sufficient funds were deposited in the proposed buyer's account to cover it, and that no such funds were ever deposited, a judgment in favor of the defendants was proper.
Williams filed suit in the Civil Court of Fulton County against the defendant real estate brokers on an attached contract of sale signed by the plaintiff as seller, by the purchaser Sanders and by the defendants, alleging that the defendants collected from Sanders $5,000 as earnest money; that thereafter Sanders refused to go through with the sale; that plaintiffs thereupon demanded payment to them of $1250, being their part of the earnest money, which defendants refused. The contract contained the usual provision that in the event the purchaser should refuse to consummate the transaction the broker would apply the earnest money deposited by the purchaser to the payment of its real estate commissions and turn the balance over to the seller as liquidated damages. It also recited that the broker acknowledged receipt of $5,000 (check) as earnest money, which earnest money is to be applied as part payment of purchase price of said property at the time sale is consummated.'
Upon the trial of the case it appeared that at the time Sanders gave the broker the check he stated that he would have to get his wife to place the funds in the bank, upon which the broker agreed to hold the check until he was informed that it would clear. The plaintiff was not informed of this fact. Later the couple had marital difficulties, and the money was never desposited in the bank to cover the check. The judge trying the case without a jury found in favor of the defendants, and error is enumerated thereon.
Johnson & Hayes, Herbert Johnson, Atlanta, for appellant.
Alex Crumbley, McDonough, for appellees.
Georgia is among the states which hold that money or an instrument evidencing indebtedness may be the subject of an escrow, and that a real estate broker under these circumstances is an escrow agent. Carter v. Turbeville, 90 Ga.App. 367, 83 S.E.2d 72; McGinley v. Chappas, 91 Ga.App. 418(1), 85 S.E.2d 791. As such, he is the agent of both parties and no liability attaches from his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Mushroom Transp. Co., Inc.
...purchase and escrow agreements was a breach of contract which caused damage to appellee."). Compare Williams v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 116 Ga.App. 253, 157 S.E.2d 166 (1967) (broker who had agreed to act as escrow agent does not breach any contract when the purchaser never place......
-
Fickling and Walker Co. v. Giddens Const. Co., Inc.
...the purpose of holding earnest money and a security deposit tendered by the real-estate purchasers. Williams v. Northside Realty Assoc., Inc., 116 Ga.App. 253, 254, 157 S.E.2d 166 (1967) and Carter v. Turbeville, 90 Ga.App. 367, 370-371(1a), 83 S.E.2d 72 (1954), clearly explain that in a si......
-
Starboard Tack Corp. v. Meister
...and not on representations made by Allen. We find this case much closer to the facts of Williams v. Northside Realty Associates, Inc., 116 Ga.App. 253, 157 S.E.2d 166 (1967), than to any of the cases cited by plaintiffs. There, plaintiff brought suit against an escrow agent for breach of co......
-
Collins v. Norton
...Judge. 1. The depository of property held in escrow is the agent of both parties in carrying out the escrow. Williams v. Northside Realty Assoc., 116 Ga.App. 253, 157 S.E.2d 166. Its purpose is merely to fulfill the terms of the agreement, or, as here, of the law. The fact of escrow removes......