The plaintiff did not allege a cause of action either under Code 105-104 or 105-1207 or under any other theory of law; therefore, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.

Berger & Company, Inc., sued Saul Gray and Esther Gray for damages growing out of an alleged tort. The plaintiff alleged the following: "2. That on or about May 20, 1957, the petitioner was a licensed real-estate broker by the State of Georgia, having its principal place of business in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia. 3. That on or about May 20, 1957, Richard S. Cadwell was a licensed real-estate salesman by the State of Georgia, in the employ of Berger & Company, Inc. 4, That on or about May 20, 1957, the petitioner, by and through its authorized agent, Richard S. Cadwell, conducted the defendants to that certain lot or parcel or tract of land described in 'Exhibit A' attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as the lot. 5. That on or about May 22, 1957, the petitioner, by and through its authorized agent, Richard S. Cadwell, again conducted the defendants to that certain lot or parcel or tract of land described in 'Exhibit A' attached hereto and made a part hereof, and hereinafter referred to as the lot. 6. That on the dates aforesaid, the petitioner, by and through its authorized agent, Richard S. Cadwell, informed the defendants that Southern Syndicate, Inc., was the owner of the lot. 7. That at the times aforesaid, the petitioner, by and through its authorized agent, Richard S. Cadwell, informed the defendants that Southern Syndicate, Inc., the owner of the lot, had listed said lot with the petitioner for an offer of purchase. 8. That the defendants knew that the petitioner caused the defendants to be conducted to the said lot for the purpose of displaying said lot to them and for the purpose of causing the defendants to offer to purchase the said lot from the owner through the petitioner. 9. That upon information and belief, the defendants thereafter did, on or about July 24, 1957, request and ask C. G. Aycock Realty Company, a licensed real-estate broker by the State of Georgia, having its principal office in Atlanta, Georgia, to submit to Southern Syndicate, Inc., the defendants' offer to purchase the said lot from Southern Syndicate, Inc. 10. That thereafter the defendants did, on or about July 24, 1957, purchase the said lot from Southern Syndicate, Inc. 11. That the purchase of the said lot through C. G. Aycock Realty Company by the defendants defrauded the petitioner of its lawful right to offer and negotiate, the purchase of the said lot, by the defendants from Southern Syndicate, Inc., the owner, and to thereby receive its lawful commission thereon for its efforts in being the procuring cause of such purchase. 12. That the services and efforts of the petitioner in conducting the defendants to the said lot were the efficient cause of the defendants' offer to purchase said lot from Southern Syndicate, Inc., through C. G. Aycock Realty Company and the subsequent purchase of said lot from Southern Syndicate, Inc., through C. G Aycock Realty Company. 13. That the defendants did purposely, wilfully and deliberately offer and negotiate the purchase of said lot through C. G. Aycock Realty Company after the petitioner had commenced its negotiations with Southern Syndicate, Inc., the owner, in order to maliciously defraud the petitioner of its lawful right to complete its negotiations and offer for the sale and purchase of the said lot to the defendants and thereby receive its lawful commission therefor from the owner of said lot. 14. That at the time the defendants requested and asked C. G. Aycock Realty Company to submit their offer to purchase said

lot from Southern Syndicate, Inc., the defendants knew that the petitioner had commenced negotiations with Southern Syndicate, Inc., the owner of said lot, for the purchase of said lot by the defendants."

The court sustained a general demurrer to the petition and dismissed the action and the plaintiff excepts.

1. The petition does not allege a cause of action on the theory that the defendants had procured the breach of a contract existing between the plaintiff and the owner of the property by the owner of the property which would give rise to a cause of action under Code 105-1207. Nowhere does the petition show that the owner of the property had listed the property with the plaintiff for sale or that there was any kind of contract between the plaintiff and the owner regarding such property. It is alleged that the plaintiff through its agent had informed the defendants that the owner of the property had listed the property with the plaintiff for the purpose of procuring a purchaser. However, that does not allege a fact that such a contract of listing existed, and it was an allegation based on hearsay. Henry Grady Hotel Co. v. Sturgis, 70 Ga. App. 379, 387 (28 S. E. 2d 329).

2. The petition does not state a cause of action under the theory that the defendants had breached a private duty that the defendants owed the plaintiff. See Code 105-104. The plaintiff does not allege that it was the agent of the defendants for the purpose of purchasing the property or that any kind of contract existed between the defendants and the plaintiff regarding such property. The petition does not otherwise show that there existed any relationship between the defendants and the plaintiff, the interference with which would give rise to a cause of action. Nor does it show any duty owed by the defendants to the plaintiff, the violation of which would give rise to a cause of action.

The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing the action.