## Facts

- Ira Wheeler (landowner) gave Charles Smith a written, signed one-year option (March 17, 1973) to purchase Rockdale County real property for $30,000.
- The option recited nominal consideration: $1.00 “in hand paid,” with receipt acknowledged.
- It was undisputed the $1.00 was not actually paid when the option was executed.
- Wheeler’s counsel wrote Smith (May 22, 1973) asserting the option was void due to nonpayment and stating Wheeler intended to sell to another buyer.
- Within the option term, Smith attempted to exercise the option (March 11, 1974) by registered mail, enclosing the $1.00 and stating readiness to pay $30,000 cash at a scheduled closing.
- Wheeler refused to accept delivery of Smith’s registered letter.
- Wheeler sued to have the option declared a nullity and removed as a cloud on title, based solely on Smith’s failure to deliver the recited $1.00.
- The trial court granted Wheeler judgment on the pleadings and declared the option a nullity; Smith appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an option agreement is void as a matter of law when the nominal consideration recited and acknowledged as paid was not actually paid at execution.
2. Whether the recital and acknowledgment of nominal consideration in a signed writing creates an enforceable implied promise to pay, preventing the option from being treated as a nullity on the pleadings.
3. Whether the trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings declaring the option unenforceable.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment on the pleadings.
- The court held the option was not a nullity merely because the $1.00 was not paid at execution.
- The court treated the recital and acknowledgment of consideration as creating an enforceable implied promise to pay the nominal amount.
- Because the trial court’s legal premise was incorrect, Wheeler was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the pleadings.

## Legal Principles

- A signed written contract that recites and acknowledges receipt of consideration may support an enforceable obligation even if the recited nominal amount was not actually paid at execution.
- Recital of nominal consideration in an option agreement can create an implied promise to pay that consideration, enforceable by the other party.
- Nonpayment of recited nominal consideration does not automatically render an option contract void.
- Judgment on the pleadings is improper where the movant’s entitlement depends on an incorrect view of substantive law; the pleadings must show entitlement to judgment as a matter of law when construed in favor of the nonmovant.

## Conclusion

The court held that an option to purchase land supported by a written recital and acknowledgment of nominal consideration is not void solely because the nominal amount was not paid at signing; the recital creates an implied, enforceable promise to pay, so the owner was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings declaring the option a nullity.


Smith v. Wheeler, 233 Ga. 166, 210 S.E.2d 702 (Ga. 1974)