Cleckley v. Mutual Fidelity Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cleckley v. Mutual Fidelity Co.

43 S.E. 725, 117 Ga. 466, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 268

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 19, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 S.E. 725 (Cleckley v. Mutual Fidelity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cleckley v. Mutual Fidelity Co., 43 S.E. 725, 117 Ga. 466, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 268 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where an incorporated company enters into a contract with an individual, whereby it promises to pay a certain sum of money at the end of forty months, the individual agreeing to pay the company a specified sum monthly, and the contract further provides that its terms shallnot bechanged or modified except by resolution of the board of directors, in a suit by the individual against the company on the contract, evidence that, at a time subsequent to the date of the contract, agents and officers of the 'company, orally and in writing, had informed the plaintiff that the contract would mature in fourteen months, was inadmissible, and was properly excluded by the trial judge.

2 Even if the plaintiff could combine with a suit on the contract an action for the rescission of the contract on the ground of fraud, a nonsuit should be granted as to this latter branch of the ease, when it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had received from the defendant, in dividends on [467]*467the contract, more than he had paid such defendant, and that no restoration or offer to restore had been made.

Argued February 23,— Decided March 19, 1903.

Action on contract. Before Judge Eve. City court of Richmond county. March term, 1902.

Henry C. Roney, for plaintiff. O. Henry Cohen and R. R. Hieles, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

By four Justices. Lamar, J., disqualified.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where an incorporated company enters into a contract with an individual, whereby it promises to pay a certain sum of money at the end of forty months, the individual agreeing to pay the company a specified sum monthly, and the contract further provides that its terms shallnot bechanged or modified except by resolution of the board of directors, in a suit by the individual against the company on the contract, evidence that, at a time subsequent to the date of the contract, agents and officers of the 'company, orally and in writing, had informed the plaintiff that the contract would mature in fourteen months, was inadmissible, and was properly excluded by the trial judge.

2 Even if the plaintiff could combine with a suit on the contract an action for the rescission of the contract on the ground of fraud, a nonsuit should be granted as to this latter branch of the ease, when it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had received from the defendant, in dividends on [467]*467the contract, more than he had paid such defendant, and that no restoration or offer to restore had been made.

Argued February 23,— Decided March 19, 1903.

Action on contract. Before Judge Eve. City court of Richmond county. March term, 1902.

Henry C. Roney, for plaintiff. O. Henry Cohen and R. R. Hieles, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

By four Justices. Lamar, J., disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 S.E. 725, 117 Ga. 466, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleckley-v-mutual-fidelity-co-ga-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack