Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

91 Ga. App. 519

86 S.E.2d 536

Hale v. Chatham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 25, 1955

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1955-02-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1957

1 state decisions

Relies on 80 Ga. App. 4 - Mayo v. Lynes · 74 Ga. App. 829 - Moody v. Foster · 90 Ga. App. 192 - Cline v. Crane

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1955-02-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Townsend, J.

¶1 An action brought by a real-estate broker to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract for commissions is subject to *520 general demurrer when, it fails to allege that the broker has fully complied with the license laws of this State. (Regarding the necessity for license, see Code § 84-1413.) It is immaterial whether the point was argued and considered in the trial court or not. Cline v. Crane, 90 Ga. App. 192 (82 S. E. 2d 175); Mayo v. Lynes, 80 Ga. App. 4 (55 S. E. 2d 174); Moody v. Foster, 74 Ga. App. 829 (3) (41 S. E. 2d 560). Accordingly, the petition here by a real-estate broker, seeking to recover commissions on an alleged exclusive listing contract, but failing to allege that the broker was legally licensed as such, was subject to general demurrer, and the trial court erred in overruling the same.

Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur. Decided February 25, 1955. Fraser & Shelfer, for plaintiff in error. Wright, Oxford & Love, Clifford Oxford, contra.

¶2 Judgment reversed.

/91/gaapp/519 · .json · Public domain