From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

King-Williams Realty Mortgage v. State Farm Life

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 23, 1977
236 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

53536.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 28, 1977.

DECIDED JUNE 23, 1977.

Action for commission. DeKalb State Court. Before Judge Mitchell.

Stuhler Miller, Gregory E. Stuhler, for appellant.

Thompson Bonner, Harold B. Thompson, for appellee.


King-Williams Realty Mortgage, Inc., appellant, brought suit against State Farm Life Insurance Co. to recover a real estate broker's commission allegedly earned when State Farm sold an apartment complex it owned. State Farm's pre-trial motion for a summary judgment was denied but after King-Williams' first witness testified, State Farm moved for judgment in its favor which was granted in the form of a directed verdict. State Farm's motion, although treated by the court as a motion for directed verdict, was tantamount to a renewed motion for summary judgment. No material issues of fact remained after the president of King-Williams testified that his firm never had any direct contact with the party who bought the apartment complex. It conclusively appearing that King-Williams was not the procuring cause of the sale, a summary judgment in State Farm's behalf was then proper. Code § 4-213; Parrish v. Ragsdale Realty Co., 135 Ga. App. 491 ( 218 S.E.2d 164).

Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 28, 1977 — DECIDED JUNE 23, 1977.


Summaries of

King-Williams Realty Mortgage v. State Farm Life

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 23, 1977
236 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

King-Williams Realty Mortgage v. State Farm Life

Case Details

Full title:KING-WILLIAMS REALTY MORTGAGE, INC. v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 23, 1977

Citations

236 S.E.2d 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
236 S.E.2d 695

Citing Cases

Oti Shelf, Inc. v. Schair & Associates, Inc.

Since Schair's entitlement to a commission is not predicated on its procurement of a buyer, we do not apply…