Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn

104 S.E. 927, 25 Ga. App. 780, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 211

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 10, 1920·No. 11261·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

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.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur. Wright Willingham, L. H. Covington, for plaintiff in error. M. B. Edwards, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

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.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur. Wright Willingham, L. H. Covington, for plaintiff in error. M. B. Edwards, contra.

Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn, 104 S.E. 927, 25 Ga. App. 780, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 211 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

104 S.E. 927 (Glover-White Mercantile Co. v. Ausburn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related