Chandler-Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Price & Co.

73 S.E. 413, 10 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 525
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1912
Docket3597
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 413 (Chandler-Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Price & Co.) 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
Chandler-Blackstad Mercantile Co. v. Price & Co., 73 S.E. 413, 10 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Testimony that one party to a contract was induced to sign it by false statements as to its contents, and that he was prevented from reading the contents before signing, by the artifice and trick of another (fully stating in what the trick or artifice consisted), did not conflict with the elementary rule that parol testimony is not admissible to vary or alter the terms of a written contract, and waB properly admitted in evidence in support of the plea of fraud in procuring the contract. Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Beckwith, 4 Ga. App. 245, and citations (61 S. E. 149); Truitt-Silvey Hat Co. v. Callaway, 130 Ga. 637 (61 S. E. 481).

2. No error appears, and the evidence supports the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Action on contract; from city court of Eastman — Judge Griffin. May 6, 1911. C. W. Atwill, for plaintiff. J. A. Neese, for defendant.

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

Related

Barron G. Collier Inc. v. Bailey
120 S.E. 427 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Patapsco Shoe Co. v. Bankston
74 S.E. 60 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
73 S.E. 413, 10 Ga. App. 383, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-blackstad-mercantile-co-v-price-co-gactapp-1912.