Parker v. Roberts

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parker v. Roberts

91 S.E. 345, 19 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 96

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 1, 1917

Docket8277

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 S.E. 345 (Parker v. Roberts) 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

Parker v. Roberts, 91 S.E. 345, 19 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 96 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Where land is bargained by the tract, a deficiency in the acreage can not be apportioned unless the purchaser can show that actual fraud was perpetrated by the vendor. Kendall v. Wells, 126 Ga. 343 (55 S. E. 41); Goette v. Sutton, 128 Ga. 179 (57 S. E. 308); King Lumber Co. v. Cowart, 136 Ga. 739 (72 S. E. 37); Montgomery v. Robertson, 134 Ga. 66 (67 S. E. 431).

2. Where, in a suit on a note for the purchase-money of land so conveyed, the maker of the note undertakes to have an alleged deficiency in acreage apportioned in the amount of the recovery, but does not allege and prove actual fraud on the part of the vendor, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the whole amount of. the note sued on, and the fact that the jury may have rendered a verdict allowing a portion of the shortage as shown by his evidence does not give the defendant the right to complain. Pullman Co. v. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609 (4), 615 (55 S. E. 933, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 407).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Complaint; from Campbell superior court—Judge Smith. August 10, 1915.

J. J. Barge, for plaintiff in error. J. F. Golightly, contra.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. Where land is bargained by the tract, a deficiency in the acreage can not be apportioned unless the purchaser can show that actual fraud was perpetrated by the vendor. Kendall v. Wells, 126 Ga. 343 (55 S. E. 41); Goette v. Sutton, 128 Ga. 179 (57 S. E. 308); King Lumber Co. v. Cowart, 136 Ga. 739 (72 S. E. 37); Montgomery v. Robertson, 134 Ga. 66 (67 S. E. 431).

2. Where, in a suit on a note for the purchase-money of land so conveyed, the maker of the note undertakes to have an alleged deficiency in acreage apportioned in the amount of the recovery, but does not allege and prove actual fraud on the part of the vendor, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the whole amount of. the note sued on, and the fact that the jury may have rendered a verdict allowing a portion of the shortage as shown by his evidence does not give the defendant the right to complain. Pullman Co. v. Schaffner, 126 Ga. 609 (4), 615 (55 S. E. 933, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 407).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Complaint; from Campbell superior court—Judge Smith. August 10, 1915.

J. J. Barge, for plaintiff in error. J. F. Golightly, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.E. 345, 19 Ga. App. 270, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-roberts-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack