Lynch Enterprise Finance Corp. v. Realty Construction Co.

168 S.E. 782, 176 Ga. 700, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 258
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 4, 1933
DocketNo. 8844
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 168 S.E. 782 (Lynch Enterprise Finance Corp. v. Realty Construction Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lynch Enterprise Finance Corp. v. Realty Construction Co., 168 S.E. 782, 176 Ga. 700, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 258 (Ga. 1933).

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the writ of error is without merit. 2. Equity has jurisdiction to reform written instruments where there has been a mistake on the part of one of the parties, accompanied by fraud on the part of the other party, just as in eases where there is a mutual mistake. Venable v. Burton, 129 Ga. 537 (69 S. E. 253) ; Gibson v. Alford, 161 Ga. 672, 683 (132 8. E. 442); Hunnicutt v. Archer, 163 Ga. 868 (2) (137 S. E. 253), and cit.

3. Fraud may exist from misrepresentation by one party which does actually deceive the other party, though the party making it was not aware that his statement was false. Civil Code, § 4113; Gibson v. Alford, supra. But the complaining party must act within a reasonable time. Civil Code, § 4580; Keith v. Brewster, 114 Ga. 176 (39 S. E. 850). There is no fraud if the other party knows that the representation is false. Cheney v. Powell, 88 Ga. 629 (15 S. E. 750). In the circumstances alleged in the petition, the plaintiff having entered into the contract of April 15, 1929, revising and modifying the contract of May 25, 1928, and received benefits thereunder, it was incumbent on the plaintiff, in order to obtain equitable relief based on the alleged false representations, to allege that it did not know that the representations were false at the time it entered into the second contract, and that it complained within a reasonable time after discovery of the fraud. There being no such allegations, the judge erred in overruling the general demurrer to the petition.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. cTones, Brins, Powers & Jones, for plaintiff in error. Winfield P. Jones, McDaniel, Neely & Marshall, and Burdine, Terry & Fleming, contra.

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

Related

Rose v. Cain
544 S.E.2d 453 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2000)
Richards v. Unimortgage Corp.
348 S.E.2d 680 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
KING SALES COMPANY, INC. v. McKey
121 S.E.2d 48 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Garland v. State of Georgia
114 S.E.2d 176 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Gaultney v. Windham
109 S.E.2d 914 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Foskey v. Lawton
210 Ga. 193 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1953)
Jackson v. Brown
70 S.E.2d 756 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Thompson v. Thompson
45 S.E.2d 632 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
M. H. Thompson v. C. S. Thompson
45 S.E.2d 632 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Prince v. Friedman
42 S.E.2d 434 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
McDonald v. Mullins
29 S.E.2d 507 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
J. Kuniansky Inc. v. Ware
15 S.E.2d 783 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Rabhan v. Rabhan
195 S.E. 193 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
168 S.E. 782, 176 Ga. 700, 1933 Ga. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lynch-enterprise-finance-corp-v-realty-construction-co-ga-1933.