Battle v. Livingston
This text of 95 S.E. 314 (Battle v. Livingston) 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.
Opinion
The right to rescind a horse swap exists only by virtue of such special terms of the contract of sale as may-so authorize, or, in the absence of any such agreement, by reason of knowingly false and fraudulent misrepresentation of existing facts, made to the complaining party, whereby he was induced to act to his injury. A mere breach of an express warranty which was the controlling inducement to trade, unaccompanied by any such fraudulent misrepresentation of fact, will not afford ground for the avoidance of such a contract. Stovall v. McBrayer, 20 Ga. App. 93 (92 S. E. 543); Barnett v. Speir, 93 Ga. 762 (21 S. E. 168; Newman v. Claflin Co., 107 Ga. 89 (32 S. E. 943); Johnson v. Harley, 121 Ga. 83 (48 S. E. 685).
Judgment reversed. Wade, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 S.E. 314, 21 Ga. App. 809, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/battle-v-livingston-gactapp-1918.