Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Fain

85 S.E. 791, 16 Ga. App. 475, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 89
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 25, 1915
Docket6047
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 791 (Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Fain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Atlanta Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Fain, 85 S.E. 791, 16 Ga. App. 475, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The petition, as amended, set forth a cause of action, and the court did not err in overruling the demurrer.

2. Where money is paid under a mistake of fact, or in ignorance of facts, it may be recovered, if the circumstances are such that the party receiving it ought not, in equity and good conscience, to retain it. Camp v. Phillips, 49 Ga. 455; Pine Belt Lumber Co. v. Morrison, 13 Ga. App. 453 (79 S. E. 363). In the instant case it is clear that the plaintiffs received nothing in return for the payments made by them, and there is nothing in the evidence which would render it inequitable for them to recover this money. See also Logan v. Sumter, 28 Ga. 242 (73 Am. D. 755); Georgia Railroad &c. Co. v. Grossley, 128 Ga. 35 (57 S. E. 97).

3. The evidence authorized the judgment. There was no error of law; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Lewis W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error, cited: 50 Ga. 310; 10 Enc. Dig. Ga. Eep. 299-303; 41 W. Ya. 742; 4 Harr. (Del.) 170; 72 Ark. 552; 101 Me. 17; 34 Mass. 134; 59 Mass. 115; 61 Mass. 125; 70 Ark. 5; 54 Ind. 337; 122 N. C. 569; 187 N. Y. 552; 21 Ky. L. Eep. 1186; 92 Mo. 239; 126 Mass. 465; 33 Neb. 98. Simmons & Simmons, contra, cited: Civil Code (1910), § 4317; 28 Ga. 242; 49 Ga. 455; 115 Ga. 70; 128 Ga. 35.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

SUN FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. Manny
275 S.E.2d 661 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Milam v. Adams
115 S.E.2d 252 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Mitchell v. Liberty National Life Insurance
29 S.E.2d 425 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Roach v. Roach
21 S.E.2d 859 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Butler v. Ragsdale
188 S.E. 578 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
New York Life Insurance v. Williamson
184 S.E. 755 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Wilson v. Harris
151 S.E. 402 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Bryant v. Guaranty Life Insurance
150 S.E. 596 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Stern v. Howell
127 S.E. 775 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 791, 16 Ga. App. 475, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-telephone-telegraph-co-v-fain-gactapp-1915.