Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn
104 S.E. 927, 25 Ga. App. 780, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 211
This text of 104 S.E. 927 (Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn) 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
Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn, 104 S.E. 927, 25 Ga. App. 780, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 211 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).
Opinion
One suing for breacli of the specific terms of an express contract cannot by amendment convert the suit into an action for tort, based on fraud and deceit, nor can he join such an action on contract with one based on tort. Brooke v. Cole, 108 Ga. 251, 252 (33 S. E. 849); Wolff v. Southern Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 251 (60 S. E. 569). Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
INGRAM & LeGRAND LUMBER CO. INC. v. BUNN
58 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
104 S.E. 927, 25 Ga. App. 780, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glover-white-mercantile-co-v-ausburn-gactapp-1920.