Court Opinion

ID: 9565006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:12:59.386691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.531175
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting in part. I concur in the rulings and judgment as to the National City Bank of Rome.
I dissent from the rulings and judgment as to the other two defendants.
I concur in the dissent of Judge Hall as I consider it to be grounded on one proposition and one alone, to wit: that a proper construction of the petition is that the petition does not show on its face that the property owner did not know that the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale of the property until -after the owner had entered into the contract of sale.
I dissent from the majority rulings and judgment as to Brittain Bros. Company and The Citizens & Southern National Bank for an additional reason. The basic premise upon which the majority rely is that, in all cases where an owner has listed property for sale, the owner has a right to sell the property without having an obligation to pay a broker a commission for the sale unless the owner has knowledge at the time he binds himself to sell the property that the broker was the procuring cause of the sale or of facts which would put him upon inquiry as to such matter. Headnote No. 2 in the case of Palmer v. Malone, 97 Ga. App. 666, supra, cited by the majority, cannot be taken to be the true law of this State under all circumstances. The true rule is that the owner, who sells without knowledge that a broker procured the purchaser, will not be bound for a commission to a broker if he sells at a price less than that at which it was listed. The rule is otherwise if the owner sells at the price listed with the broker. In the Palmer v. Malone case, supra, as shown by the statement of facts in the 4th Headnote, the owner sold the property for $5,000 less than that at which it was listed. A reading of the case of State Life Ins. Co. v. Whitehurst, 67 Ga. App. 646 (2) (21 SE2d 474) will *514show what the true rule is as do the cases of Tidwell v. Hines, 28 Ga. App. 806 (113 SE 48); Mobley v. Tinsley, 31 Ga. App. 259 (1) (120 SE 437); and Indiana Fruit Co. v. Sandlin, 125 Ga. 222 (2) (54 SE 65). The rationale of this rule of law is that where a broker has failed to sell property at a price fixed by the owner, if the owner sells the property at a price less than the price listed, he is entitled to notice as to whether the broker may have a claim for commission in determining the price at which he will sell the property. Under the cases above cited, if the owner sells the property at the price listed with the broker, the owner is liable to the broker procuring the sale whether the owner knew of the broker’s interest at the time of making the sale or not, for the reason that the owner has been protected with regard to the commission because the commission is included in the sale price. In the instant case, the property was not listed with the brokers to be sold at any certain price. The contract with the brokers was that they obtain prospective purchasers who would make an offer for the property to the seller. The same principle heretofore referred to would apply in this case if the price at which the property was sold included the agreed broker’s commission and it would not make any difference whether the owner knew at the time it bound itself to sell the property whether the plaintiff was the procuring cause of the sale. If the sale price did not include a broker’s commission and there was no fraud in its not being included, and the owner did not know that the plaintiff procured the sale before it became bound to sell, I do not think that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover. The basis of this dissent is the proposition of law stated above, plus the fact that it does not affirmatively appear in the petition that the contract price of the property did not include the broker’s commission.