Pantone v. Pantone
This text of 46 S.E.2d 498 (Pantone v. Pantone) 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.
Opinion
Where a promise was made by a grantee as an inducement or consideration for the execution of a warranty deed by the grantors, by which promise he agreed to maintain the home place con *348 veyed, keep up repairs, pay taxes, and not get married, but keep it as a home which the grantors could use as they had done during their mother’s lifetime, and where approximately seven years later the grantee married, moved his wife into the home, and claimed it as his individual property, evidence showing a mere failure to comply with his promise was insufficient to establish an inceptive fraudulent intent; and there being no other evidence showing that at the time the agreement was made it was done with intent to defraud, the trial judge did not err in granting a nonsuit. Brinson v. Hester, 185 Ga. 761 (1, 2) (196 S. E. 412).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
46 S.E.2d 498, 203 Ga. 347, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pantone-v-pantone-ga-1948.