Fuller v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fuller v. Hill

149 S.E. 810, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 181

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 4, 1929

Docket19214

StatusPublished

This text of 149 S.E. 810 (Fuller v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Hill, 149 S.E. 810, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 181 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A petition in a suit to recover damages for deceit, which alleges that the plaintiff was dissuaded from his intention and purpose to withdraw a certain sum of money which he had on deposit in a certain bank, by a representation made to him by the defendant that the bank was solvent, when in fact the bank at the time was insolvent and its insolvency was known to the defendant, fails, since it alleges that the bank at the time was insolvent, to allege any damage to the plaintiff. The allegation in the petition that when the plaintiff was dissuaded from his intention to withdraw his deposit the bank was insolvent implies that the bank at the time was unable to meet all its obligations, and therefore excludes the inference that the bank at the time would have or could have paid anything to the plaintiff.

2. The petition fails to set out a cause of action, and the court properly sustained the demurrer thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. A petition in a suit to recover damages for deceit, which alleges that the plaintiff was dissuaded from his intention and purpose to withdraw a certain sum of money which he had on deposit in a certain bank, by a representation made to him by the defendant that the bank was solvent, when in fact the bank at the time was insolvent and its insolvency was known to the defendant, fails, since it alleges that the bank at the time was insolvent, to allege any damage to the plaintiff. The allegation in the petition that when the plaintiff was dissuaded from his intention to withdraw his deposit the bank was insolvent implies that the bank at the time was unable to meet all its obligations, and therefore excludes the inference that the bank at the time would have or could have paid anything to the plaintiff.

2. The petition fails to set out a cause of action, and the court properly sustained the demurrer thereto.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.E. 810, 40 Ga. App. 430, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-hill-gactapp-1929.