Mumford v. Mechanics Loan & Savings Co.

146 S.E. 655, 39 Ga. App. 204, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 248
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 22, 1929
Docket18951
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 655 (Mumford v. Mechanics Loan & Savings Co.) 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
Mumford v. Mechanics Loan & Savings Co., 146 S.E. 655, 39 Ga. App. 204, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“Where a contract is induced by the actual, moral fraud of one of the parties, his liability for property obtained under the contract may be enforced according- to the terms of the contract, or the defrauded party may waive the contract and sue in tort for the damages sustained on account of the fraud. In the first event, the liability of the debtor under the terms of the contract itself is a contractual liability, -and a discharge in bankruptcy releases him therefrom. Ford v. Blackshear Mfg. Co., 140 Ga. 670 (4) (79 S. E. 576) ; Sanger v. Barrett (Tex. Civ. App.), 221 S. W. 1087. In the latter event, the liability of the debtor is one arising in fort, for property obtained by false pretenses, and a discharge in bankruptcy does not release him therefrom. Donnelly Co. v. Milligan, 37 Ga. App. 530 (140 S. E. 918).” [205]*205Symmes v. Rollins, 39 Ga. App. 53 (146 S. E. 42). This being a suit on a contract which it is alleged was induced by the defendant’s fraudulent misrepresentations, in which the plaintiff sought to recover interest and attorney’s fees as provided by the contract, the case conies within the rule announced in Ford v. Blackshear, supra. The defendant’s plea of discharge in bankruptcy should have been sustained, and the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was not authorized. Accordingly, the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the defendant’s petition for certiorari.

Decided January 22, 1929. Rehearing denied February 20, 1929. Charles W. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. Burress & Dillard, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., eoneur.

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

Related

Garmon v. Davis
12 S.E.2d 209 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Covington
172 Misc. 310 (New York Supreme Court, 1939)
Allen v. Hartsfield Co.
183 S.E. 821 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Hartsfield Co. v. Newlin
176 S.E. 516 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 S.E. 655, 39 Ga. App. 204, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mumford-v-mechanics-loan-savings-co-gactapp-1929.