Petty v. Lee

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Petty v. Lee

209 S.E.2d 239, 132 Ga. App. 780, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1818

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 1, 1974

Docket49475

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 209 S.E.2d 239 (Petty v. Lee) 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

Petty v. Lee, 209 S.E.2d 239, 132 Ga. App. 780, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1818 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

In this case plaintiff sought recovery for damages based on fraud and deceit arising from the sale of a house. The defendants are the seller and the real estate agent. The plaintiff at trial failed to establish any wilful misrepresentation by either of the defendants as to the condition of the house and in particular the roof which was found to be defective by plaintiff after the closing of the sale. Further, there was no evidence that the defective roof had been concealed so as to deceive and mislead the plaintiff. Thus essential elements for [781]*781recovery on account of fraud and deceit were not shown by the plaintiffs evidence. Code § 105-302; Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814 (156 SE2d 164). The trial judge correctly granted defendants a directed verdict.

Argued July 1, 1974 Decided October 1, 1974. Thomas A. Bowman, for appellant. James L. Mayson, H. G. McBrayer, Jr., for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

In this case plaintiff sought recovery for damages based on fraud and deceit arising from the sale of a house. The defendants are the seller and the real estate agent. The plaintiff at trial failed to establish any wilful misrepresentation by either of the defendants as to the condition of the house and in particular the roof which was found to be defective by plaintiff after the closing of the sale. Further, there was no evidence that the defective roof had been concealed so as to deceive and mislead the plaintiff. Thus essential elements for [781]*781recovery on account of fraud and deceit were not shown by the plaintiffs evidence. Code § 105-302; Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga. App. 814 (156 SE2d 164). The trial judge correctly granted defendants a directed verdict.

Argued July 1, 1974 Decided October 1, 1974. Thomas A. Bowman, for appellant. James L. Mayson, H. G. McBrayer, Jr., for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 S.E.2d 239, 132 Ga. App. 780, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petty-v-lee-gactapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack