Cade v. Burton
35 Ga. 280
Opinion
That Burton perpetrated a gross fraud upon Cade cannot be doubted in this case. Still, Tate is protected, and the only question is, when the suit should have been commenced by Cade against Burton. We think, by analogy, that the period of limitations applicable for the fraud is the same as that which would apply to an action for the land, to-wit: seven years from the discovery of the fraud; which was when Tate commenced clearing the land in dispute in the winter of 1856-57. Consequently, the judgment below, is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cade v. Burton, 35 Ga. 280 (Ga. 1866).
35 Ga. 280 (Cade v. Burton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Broadfoot v. Hunerwadel (In Re Dulock)
282 B.R. 54 (N.D. Georgia, 2002)
Jones v. Spindel
235 S.E.2d 486 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1977)
Denham v. Shellman Grain Elevator, Inc.
181 S.E.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Poore v. Poore
80 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)
Jones v. Johnson
46 S.E.2d 484 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948)
Shirley v. Mulligan
44 S.E.2d 796 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Hadden v. Thompson
42 S.E.2d 125 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Slade v. Barber
37 S.E.2d 143 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Whittle v. Nottingham
138 S.E. 62 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1927)
Robinson v. Smith
125 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Wallace v. Mize
112 S.E. 724 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Phipps v. Wright
110 S.E. 511 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Beasley v. Smith
87 S.E. 293 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Crawford v. Crawford
67 S.E. 673 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
McWhorter v. Cheney
49 S.E. 603 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Knox v. Yow
17 S.E. 654 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)