Dean v. Merchants & Farmers Bank

101 S.E. 196, 24 Ga. App. 485, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 873
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 19, 1919·No. 10592·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

1. Where one purchasing real estate has the opportunity of examining it before buying, but, instead of doing so, voluntarily relies upon the statements of the vendor-concerning its character and value, the contract will not be rescinded or set aside, or the purchase-price ot the land abated, because of the falsity of such statements, unless some fraud or artifice was practiced by the vendor to prevent such examination. This is true even though the vendee in buying the land may have acted upon the misrepresentations of the vendor or his agent. See Tallent v. Crim, 19 Ga. App. 16 (90 S. E. 742), and numerous eases there cited.

2. Under the foregoing ruling, the court did not err in striking the defendant’s plea and in thereafter directing a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount sued for.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and, Stephens,.J., concur.

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

Dean v. Merchants & Farmers Bank, 101 S.E. 196, 24 Ga. App. 485, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 873 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

101 S.E. 196 (Dean v. Merchants & Farmers Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Krys v. Henderson
69 S.E.2d 635 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Love v. Nixon
61 S.E.2d 423 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Westbrook v. Beusse
54 S.E.2d 693 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Newbern v. Milhollin
120 S.E. 637 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Clark v. Adams
116 S.E. 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)