From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hale v. Chatham

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 25, 1955
86 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)

Opinion

35549.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1955.

Breach of contract. Before Judge Vaughn. DeKalb Superior Court. November 30, 1954.

Fraser Shelfer, for plaintiff in error.

Wright, Oxford Love, Clifford Oxford, contra.


An action brought by a real-estate broker to recover damages for breach of an alleged contract for commissions is subject to 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.

Judgment reversed. Gardner, P. J., and Carlisle, J., concur.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 25, 1955.


Summaries of

Hale v. Chatham

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 25, 1955
86 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)
Case details for

Hale v. Chatham

Case Details

Full title:HALE v. CHATHAM

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 25, 1955

Citations

86 S.E.2d 536 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)
86 S.E.2d 536

Citing Cases

Nussbaum v. Shaffer

A number of cases are cited for the proposition that compliance with the licensing provisions must be…

Webster Cason Associates v. Lackie

Furthermore, nowhere in the cross action is it alleged that the defendant was a duly licensed real estate…