Legal Opinion

Mooney v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 1, 1952No. 34084PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) 1. Code § 38-501 provides as follows: “Parol contemporaneous evidence is inadmissible generally to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written intrument.” The contract here, which is absolute and complete upon its face, provides in unambiguous terms that the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for his broker’s commission, to be taken out of the earnest money paid over to him, unless the seller fails to furnish good title to the premises. It is not alleged that the seller (that is, the lessor) defaulted in any way, but on the contrary it is alleged…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Heitmann v. Commercial BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  2. Johnson v. CobbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
  3. Rheney v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  4. Byrd & Co. v. Marietta Fertilizer Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1906
  5. Dinkler v. BaerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Feder v. River's Edge Restaurant, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1978
  2. Branan & Schmitz Realty Co. v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  3. Pfeffer v. General Casualty Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API