Dawson v. Pennaman

65 Ga. 698
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 15, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 65 Ga. 698 (Dawson v. Pennaman) 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
Dawson v. Pennaman, 65 Ga. 698 (Ga. 1880).

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

This case came before the superior court on a writ of certiorari, and the superior court having sustained the certiorari and remanded the case for another hearing in the justice court, the plaintiff in error excepted and, assigns for error the judgment sustaining the certiorari. The suit was for a mule, wherein plaintiff in the justice court was non-suited on the ground that his testimony was insufficient prima facie to make a case to go to the jury. It seems that the horse was warranted to be sound, and the justice held that the action should have been upon the breach of warranty, and not in trover for the mule; but the evidence is to the effect that the plaintiff below was cheated and defrauded badly out of the mule, and hence no title passed under the-Code, and the repeated [700]*700rulings of this court, and therefore the superior court was right in sustaining the certiorari, and awarding a new trial in the justice court. Code, §§2633, 2751, 3178.

Unquestionably the fraud which, under section 2633, voids a sale, and consequently does not permit title to pass, must be actual fraud, mixed with deceit and corrup. tion, and not merely legal or constructive fraud ; but in this case there is evidence to show such actual fraud, and the proper tribunal should have passed upon it, and the plaintiff should not have been non-suited. It is true that if there had ' been a warranty unmixed with such actual fraud, the plaintiff’s remedy would have been a suit on the breach of that warranty; but where there is actual fraud, so that no title passed, he had his remedy or his choice of remedies, either to sue for the property, the title to which never passed from him, or on the breach of warranty for damages. The superior court was right, therefore, to sustain the certiorari, and remand the cause for another hearing on the merits.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Fried v. Freeman
176 S.E.2d 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Bankers Fidelity Life Insurance v. Harrison
123 S.E.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Few v. Automobile Financing, Inc.
115 S.E.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Yeomans v. Jones
188 S.E. 62 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Johnson v. Harley
48 S.E. 685 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Pound v. Williams
47 S.E. 218 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Newman v. Claflin Co.
32 S.E. 943 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Barnett v. Speir
21 S.E. 168 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1894)
Massengill v. First National Bank
76 Ga. 341 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 Ga. 698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dawson-v-pennaman-ga-1880.