Ratliffe v. Hartsfield Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ratliffe v. Hartsfield Co.

184 S.E. 328, 52 Ga. App. 765, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 242

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 29, 1936

Docket23423

StatusPublished

This text of 184 S.E. 328 (Ratliffe v. Hartsfield 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

Ratliffe v. Hartsfield Co., 184 S.E. 328, 52 Ga. App. 765, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 242 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Gtjbbby, J.

The Supreme Court decided in this case, on certiorari, that “The ‘investment certificate’ issued by the plaintiff is a security as defined in section 5 of the act of 1920 (Ga. L. 1920, p. 250), as amended by the act of 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, pp. 156, 157). See Code of 1933, §§ 97-101 et seq. It is not excepted from the operation of said acts either by § 97-302 or § 97-303 of the Code of 1933, and is such a security as is intended to be covered by said acts as a class D security, required to be listed with the Securities Commission. Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of the acts cited, regulating the sale of such security, voids the contract for its purchase, and the purchaser may at his election rescind the contract within twelve months and recover the moneys paid thereunder, with interest, together with reasonable attorney’s fees. Code of 1933, § 97-104.” Ratliffe v. Hartsfield Co., 181 Ga. 663 (184 S. E. —). Under the foregoing decision, the original judgment rendered by this court (49 Ga. App. 598, 176 S. E. 151), affirming the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is vacated, and a judgment of reversal is entered.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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

Gtjbbby, J.

The Supreme Court decided in this case, on certiorari, that “The ‘investment certificate’ issued by the plaintiff is a security as defined in section 5 of the act of 1920 (Ga. L. 1920, p. 250), as amended by the act of 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, pp. 156, 157). See Code of 1933, §§ 97-101 et seq. It is not excepted from the operation of said acts either by § 97-302 or § 97-303 of the Code of 1933, and is such a security as is intended to be covered by said acts as a class D security, required to be listed with the Securities Commission. Failure of the plaintiff to comply with the provisions of the acts cited, regulating the sale of such security, voids the contract for its purchase, and the purchaser may at his election rescind the contract within twelve months and recover the moneys paid thereunder, with interest, together with reasonable attorney’s fees. Code of 1933, § 97-104.” Ratliffe v. Hartsfield Co., 181 Ga. 663 (184 S. E. —). Under the foregoing decision, the original judgment rendered by this court (49 Ga. App. 598, 176 S. E. 151), affirming the judgment overruling the motion for new trial is vacated, and a judgment of reversal is entered.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, G. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E. 328, 52 Ga. App. 765, 1936 Ga. App. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ratliffe-v-hartsfield-co-gactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack