Cummings v. Fleming & Hines

118 S.E. 593, 30 Ga. App. 601, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 548
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided July 10, 1923·No. 14581·Published

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) In our opinion the trial court properly decided the case. See, in this connection, Civil Code (1910), §§ 4136, 4194, 4195; Smith v. Eason, 46 Ga. 317 (1, 2); Godwin v. Maxwell, 106 Ga. 194 (32 S. E. 114); Foute v. Elder, 109 Ga. 713 (1, 2) (35 S. E. 118); Lowery v. Yawn, 111 Ga. 61 (36 S. E. 294); Oliver v. Holt, 141 Ga. 126 (80 S. E. 630).

[603] The authorities cited by counsel for the plaintiff in error, to the effect that, where the sale of land is by the tract, and the quantity is specified as “ more or less,” a deficiency in the amount of the land sold cannot be apportioned, unless the purchaser shows actual fraud on the part of the seller, are not applicable to the particular facts of this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Cummings v. Fleming & Hines, 118 S.E. 593, 30 Ga. App. 601, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 548 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

118 S.E. 593 (Cummings v. Fleming & Hines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Godwin v. Maxwell
32 S.E. 114 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Foute v. Elder
35 S.E. 118 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Lowery v. Yawn
36 S.E. 294 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
Oliver v. Holt
80 S.E. 630 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)