Dean v. Merchants & Farmers Bank
Opinion
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so, voluntarily relies upon the statements of the vendor concerning its character and value, the contract will not be rescinded or set aside, or the purchase-price of the land abated, because of the falsity of such statements, unless some fraud or artifice was practised by the vendor to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 cases 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
24 Ga. App. 475 (Dean v. Merchants & Farmers Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.