Legal Opinion

Branan & Schmitz Realty, Inc. v. Ballard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 9, 1968No. 43413PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Presiding Judge.

A contract for the sale of realty must expressly state the consideration or it must furnish a key by which the amount and terms of the purchase price can be ascertained; if the contract furnishes a key to the details of the consideration, that is sufficient. Muller v. Cooper, 165 Ga. 439, 442 (141 SE 300). If the terms of the written agreement show a gross consideration including the assumption of an incumbrance which is properly identified in'the agreement plus payment of *759the balance of the purchase price in cash, the terms of payment can be ascertained by reference to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. F & C INVESTMENT COMPANY v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
  2. Trust Co. v. NealSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  3. Muller v. CooperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
  4. Massell Realty Co. v. HanburySupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
  5. Morgan v. HemphillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Barto v. HicksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  2. Summerlin v. BEACON INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  3. Branan & Schmitz Realty Co. v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  4. Hodsdon v. Mid-Continental, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
  5. Branan & Schmitz Realty, Inc. v. BallardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API