DocketNumber: 6 Div. 558.
Citation Numbers: 107 So. 909, 21 Ala. App. 222
Judges: PER CURIAM.
Filed Date: 4/7/1925
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/11/2023
The original opinion in this case is based upon the assumption that the Gambill Realty Company was not the broker of Culver, who undertook to furnish a purchaser for Culver's property, but in all of the negotiations the Gambill Realty Company acted for and on account of the purchaser, and therefore the decision in this case did not in any way contravene the decision in the case of Birmingham L. L. Co., v. Thompson,
It is to be observed that a majority of the Supreme Court do not express their views as to whether or not a party wall is an incumbrance on the property, the opinion of Mr. Justice Miller on that particular point being concurred in by only one of the justices.
It would therefore appear that the effect of the holding in this case is to submit the question of agency as between Gambill and Culver to the jury.
Upon the authority of Culver v. A. A. Gambill Realty Co., 6 Div. 464 (Ala. Sup.)
Affirmed.