Household Finance Corp. v. Harmon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Household Finance Corp. v. Harmon

116 S.E.2d 319, 102 Ga. App. 320, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 612

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1960

Docket38397

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E.2d 319 (Household Finance Corp. v. Harmon) 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

Household Finance Corp. v. Harmon, 116 S.E.2d 319, 102 Ga. App. 320, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankum, Judge.

Where, briefly, a petitioner alleges that the defendant sought to obtain a loan from the plaintiff, that the plaintiff required a financial statement, that the defendant knowingly gave a false financial statement which did not include all of the defendant’s debts, that the financial state[321]*321ment was made for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff, that the plaintiff relied upon such representations, and, had the defendant disclosed all her debts, the plaintiff would not have made the loan, and that in reliance upon the financial statement the plaintiff advanced the defendant $448.43, and suffered a loss in that amount for which the plaintiff sued; the petition sets forth a cause of action for deceit. Hartridge v. Wesson, 4 Ga. 101; Anderson v. Macy & Co., 101 Ga. App. 894 (115 S. E. 2d 430); Gaultney v. Windham, 99 Ga. App. 800 (109 S. E. 2d 914); Hinton v. Equitable Loan Co., 41 Ga. App. 815 (155 S. E. 101). “‘Wilful misrepresentation of a material fact, made to induce another to act, and upon which he does act to his injury, will give a right of action.’ Civil Code (1910), § 4410 [Code § 105-302], Thus, where the basis upon which the contract was entered upon lies in the existence or non-existence of certain material facts, the verity of which needs must be ascertained from the statement of one acquainted with such facts, each of the contracting parties has a right to rely upon the truth of the other’s statements with reference thereto, when such statements relate to matters apparently within the knowledge of the party asserting them; and to do this without checking up the statements with the declarations of other and different persons, in order, by such an investigation, to test their probable truth, [citations].” Deibert v. McWhorter, 34 Ga. App. 803, 804 (132 S. E. 110). It may be inferred from the allegation, “the plaintiff relied upon such representations of defendant and had the defendant disclosed all of her indebtedness, the plaintiff would not have made the defendant ... a loan,” that the plaintiff was deceived into advancing the money. The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

Decided September 7, 1960. Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Kyle Yancey, Harris Bullock, for plaintiff in error. Wendell J. Helton, John L. Lee, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Frankum, Judge.

Where, briefly, a petitioner alleges that the defendant sought to obtain a loan from the plaintiff, that the plaintiff required a financial statement, that the defendant knowingly gave a false financial statement which did not include all of the defendant’s debts, that the financial state[321]*321ment was made for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff, that the plaintiff relied upon such representations, and, had the defendant disclosed all her debts, the plaintiff would not have made the loan, and that in reliance upon the financial statement the plaintiff advanced the defendant $448.43, and suffered a loss in that amount for which the plaintiff sued; the petition sets forth a cause of action for deceit. Hartridge v. Wesson, 4 Ga. 101; Anderson v. Macy & Co., 101 Ga. App. 894 (115 S. E. 2d 430); Gaultney v. Windham, 99 Ga. App. 800 (109 S. E. 2d 914); Hinton v. Equitable Loan Co., 41 Ga. App. 815 (155 S. E. 101). “‘Wilful misrepresentation of a material fact, made to induce another to act, and upon which he does act to his injury, will give a right of action.’ Civil Code (1910), § 4410 [Code § 105-302], Thus, where the basis upon which the contract was entered upon lies in the existence or non-existence of certain material facts, the verity of which needs must be ascertained from the statement of one acquainted with such facts, each of the contracting parties has a right to rely upon the truth of the other’s statements with reference thereto, when such statements relate to matters apparently within the knowledge of the party asserting them; and to do this without checking up the statements with the declarations of other and different persons, in order, by such an investigation, to test their probable truth, [citations].” Deibert v. McWhorter, 34 Ga. App. 803, 804 (132 S. E. 110). It may be inferred from the allegation, “the plaintiff relied upon such representations of defendant and had the defendant disclosed all of her indebtedness, the plaintiff would not have made the defendant ... a loan,” that the plaintiff was deceived into advancing the money. The trial court erred in sustaining the general demurrer.

Decided September 7, 1960. Bullock, Yancey & Mitchell, Kyle Yancey, Harris Bullock, for plaintiff in error. Wendell J. Helton, John L. Lee, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E.2d 319, 102 Ga. App. 320, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/household-finance-corp-v-harmon-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack