TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Orr v. Smith

ORR Et Al. v. SMITH

Orr v. Smith, 115 S.E.2d 601 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 17, 1960
Docket
No. 38254
Judges
Bell, Felton, Nichols
Citations
115 S.E.2d 601102 Ga. App. 401960 Ga. App. LEXIS 550
Cited by 7

Opinion — Felton

Felton, Chief Judge.

The only question argued by counsel is whether the contract of listing is too vague and indefinite to support a cause of action for the recovery of sales commissions. The contention of the defendant in error is that (1) the description of the property is too vague and indefinite and (2) ’that the price is too vague and indefinite, but only the first point is argued. The second contention is obviously without merit.

*43 A contract listing real property for sale with a broker is not subject to the same rales as a contract for the purchase and sale of real property. It does not come within the statute of frauds so as to require that it be in writing.

Lingo v. Blair, 32 Ga. App. 111 ( 122 S. E. 802 );

Cantrell v. Johnston, 74 Ga. App. 74 (2) ( 38 S. E. 2d 893 ) and cases cited. It was stated in Crawford v. English, 26 Ga. App. 563, 568 ( 106 S. E. 621 ): “We do not think that the description of property placed in the hands of a broker for sale needs be as definite and complete as that which should be made in deeds of conveyance.” We think that this should be the true rule and we are of the opinion that it is the majority rule over the nation even in States which require a brokerage contract, or contract of listing, to be in writing. 80 A. L. R. 1466. We are of the opinion that all that is necessary to recover on such a contract is to allege and prove that the property attempted to be described in the contract is the same property intended to be listed by the owner and offered for sale by the broker. When this is shown to the satisfaction of the triers of fact we do not see how any harm can be done, especially in view of the fact the contract is not required to be in writing. To illustrate: the owner of a house shows a broker to a house, points it out and offers him a commission to sell it for a fixed price or on other terms. The property has not been described, but could it reasonably be said that the broker did not earn a commission if he sold the house pointed out to him and otherwise complied with the contract of listing? We think not. We think the petition in this case is sufficient to allege as against general demurrer that the houses sold were those listed. If the broker showed and sought to sell the wrong houses and did not interest the purchasers in the right ones it could be shown as a matter of defense. All of the cases cited by the defendant in error are cases involving contracts of purchase and sale and not mere listing contracts.

The court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss the petition.

Judgment reversed.

Nichols and Bell, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1964: 11968: 21979: 11988: 21998: 119642026peak 1968 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brazo v. Real Estate Commission418 A.2d 883 (Conn. 1979)
  2. Morris v. SAVANNAH VALLEY REALTY, INC.505 S.E.2d 259 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
  3. Keith v. Byram163 S.E.2d 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  4. Davis v. Boyd162 S.E.2d 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  5. International Business Investments, Inc. v. Archer Motor Co.369 S.E.2d 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
  6. Pfarner v. Poston Realty & Insurance Agency, Inc.134 S.E.2d 835 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)

Most recent

  1. Morris v. SAVANNAH VALLEY REALTY, INC.505 S.E.2d 259 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998)
  2. Stacey Realty, Inc. v. Calvary Baptist Church, Inc.374 S.E.2d 537 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
  3. International Business Investments, Inc. v. Archer Motor Co.369 S.E.2d 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)
  4. Brazo v. Real Estate Commission418 A.2d 883 (Conn. 1979)
  5. Keith v. Byram163 S.E.2d 753 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
  6. Davis v. Boyd162 S.E.2d 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Lingo v. Blair, 122 S.E. 802 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924) 7
Crawford v. English, 106 S.E. 621 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921) 6
Cantrell v. Johnston, 38 S.E.2d 893 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list