LAW.coLAW.co

Haas & Haas v. Marks

Supreme Court of Georgia1924-05-06No. No. 4116
158 Ga. 267

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Gilbert, J.

The petition alleged the making of a contract between the parties, and a breach thereof by the defendant. As part consideration moving the plaintiffs to enter into such contract was an agreement by the defendant to furnish a stipulated sum of money to the plaintiffs to be loaned on specified terms, and further that the defendant would not unreasonably refuse to accept applications made by parties wishing to borrow. The petition further alleged the securing of applications falling reasonably within the stipulated terms, and an arbitrary refusal of the defendant to perform his part of his contract, thus constituting a breach of contract. Held, that the allegations of the petition set out a cause of action for breach of a contract, wherein the damages are not too remote to be recovered. It was error to dismiss the petition on demurrer. Civil Code (1910), §§ 4395, 4510, 4511; Stewart v. Lanier House Co., 75 Ga. 582; Electric Ry. Co. v. Tennessee Coal &c. Co., 98 Ga. 191 (26 S. E. 741); Waycross Air-Line R. Co. v. Offerman &c. R. Co., 114 Ga. 727, 731 (40 S. E. 738).

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, O. J., and Atkinson, J., dissenting.

To this petition the defendant interposed a demurrer containing general and special grounds. The court sustained the demurrers and dismissed the petition. Plaintiffs excepted. The judgment sustaining the demurrer states the reasons therefor, and shows that the dismissal was based solely on the ground that, according to the petition, the compensation to be received by the petitioners on account of the alleged contract was to be paid, not by the defendant, but by the borrowers, and was in the nature of brokerage, and therefore that the contract was purely speculative and was too indefinite to furnish a basis for recovery; and that the contract was unilateral, and accordingly was not mutually binding upon the parties in a definite and certain manner. The briefs of both parties discussed this grounds as the sole reason for the dismissal of the petition, and did not mention any other grounds of demurrer.

H. A. Alexander, for plaintiffs.

TF. TF. Yisanslca, for defendant.