Opinion
37800.
DECIDED OCTOBER 27, 1959.
Action to recover commissions. Columbus Municipal Court. Before Judge Bagley. April 29, 1959.
T. M. Flournoy, Owen G. Roberts, Jr., for plaintiff in error.
Davis Davis, Lennie L. Davis, Walter E. Nitcher, contra.
The real-estate sale contract in the present case forming the basis of an action for real-estate commissions against the purchaser therein is too indefinite to be enforceable and therefore creates no obligation to pay commissions so as to sustain such an action since the sale contract provides that the purchaser would assume two loans, one of $500 at $25 per month and another of approximately $14,600, payable $93 per month. Morgan v. Hemphill, 214 Ga. 555 ( 105 S.E.2d 580); C. V. Nalley, Inc. v. Schoen, 215 Ga. 513 ( 111 S.E.2d 40). The court did not err in directing a verdict against the plaintiff broker and in favor of the defendant purchaser for the earnest money deposited with the broker by him and in denying the broker's amended motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.
DECIDED OCTOBER 27, 1959.
W. Payton Dunford sued Emmett C. Townsend to recover a real-estate commission allegedly due as the result of a pleaded sale contract. The contract provided that the defendant agreed to purchase from two named persons certain real estate located in Muscogee County, Georgia, for the sum of $17,000 payable $2,000 cash and purchaser to assume loan of $500 at $25 per month and present loan of approximately $14,600 payable at $93 per month. The contract further provided that in the event the sale was not consummated for reasons other than the default of purchaser the earnest money of $200 paid to the plaintiff by the defendant would be refunded. The court directed the jury to find against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant for $200 earnest money on the ground that the contract attached to the petition was too vague and indefinite to be enforceable as a consequence of which the defendant was entitled to recover the earnest money as prayed for in the answer and cross-action. The plaintiff's amended motion for new trial on the general grounds and a special ground complaining of the direction of the verdict was denied, and he excepts to that judgment.