Mobley v. Tinsley, 31 Ga. App. 259

Mobley v. Tinsley

31 Ga. App. 259

Ga. Ct. App.

1923

Check Treatment

Jenkins, P. J.

In а suit for commissions, where there is evidence going to show that the defendant as owner authorized the plaintiff to procure a purchasеr ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍of certain property, agreeing to pay for such services a stated commission, nоt on any agreed contract price, but on whatever *260sale amount should be arrived at bеtween himself as owner and any purchaser thus рrocured, and where it appears that the plaintiff subsequently interested a third person in the рurchase and sent him to the defendant with a view to purchasing the property, but where it appears, without dispute, that, although the plaintiff had аmple opportunity to notify the owner that the customer had been interested by himself, he nevеrtheless failed to do so, and the owner dealt with» the prospective purchaser without any sort of notice or knowledge that he had bеen interested by the plaintiff, and, after negotiаtions extending over several ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍months, finally accepted a greatly reduced purchase price, as from one with whom he in good faith dealt as an original customer procured by himself, and without any notice or knowledge that such price would be charged with a sales commissiоn, the plaintiff cannot recover: In a case where the owner had a right to sell the property for himself, and where, under the agreement with the plaintiff, no contract price was agreed upon, but was to be arrived at in negotiations between the customer and the owner, thе latter was entitled to know, in fixing or reducing such amоunt, that he would be chargeable with commissions. See Doonan v. Ives, 73 Ga. 295; Washington v. Jordan, 28 Ga. App. 18 (7) (109 S. E. 923). The rule would be different in a ease of а broker’s contract where there was an аgreed sales price fixed between the owner and broker, and the owner effected ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍thе sale, even without notice that the customеr had been procured by the agent, but in so doing rеceived the price named in the brokerage agreement. Indiana Fruit Co. v. Sandlin, 125 Ga. 222 (2) (54 S. E. 65); 9 Corpus Juris, 612; Quist v. Goodfellow, 99 Minn. 509 (110 N. W. 65, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 153, and case ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍note, 9 Ann. Cas. 431). In Garrett v. Wall, 29 Ga. App. 642 (116 S. E. 331), nо question of notice or knowledge was involved, and in that case the record discloses ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍that the defendant dealt with the customer as onе furnished by the plaintiff.

Decided November 27, 1923. 8. D. Dell, for plaintiff. Hall, Grice & Bloch, for defendants.

2. In view of the above ruling, and under thе undisputed evidence in this case, the trial judge did nоt err in directing a verdict in favor of the defendаnt.

Judgment on main hill of exceptions affirmed; cross-hill dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.