Ray v. Isakson

13 S.E.2d 360, 191 Ga. 610, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 336
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 14, 1941
Docket13543.
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 13 S.E.2d 360 (Ray v. Isakson) 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.

Bluebook
Ray v. Isakson, 13 S.E.2d 360, 191 Ga. 610, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 336 (Ga. 1941).

Opinion

Atkinson, Presiding Justice.

Where a purchaser of real estate enters into a written contract of purchase with the seller, the writing containing no representations or warranties except “It is agreed that the vendor shall furnish good and marketable [title] to said property and purchaser shall have a reasonable time in which to investigate;” the vendee malting a down payment of cash, and executing notes for the balance; and the vendee brings suit against the vendor, setting forth the above facts, and further that the seller made certain false and fraudulent representations to him concerning the character of the improvements thereon, the materials and workmanship; that the dwelling-house thereon is worthless and untenantable; the petition praying for cancellation of the outstanding notes, for injunction preventing the transfer of the notes, for an accounting, and for judgment for the amount already paid, for other money expended on said house, and for the expense of moving into said house; but it does not appear that the petitioner offered to rescind the contract when he discovered, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have discovered, the alleged representations by the defendant to be untrue, or why the defendant fraudulently prevented the inclusion of the representations in the written contract, or why plaintiff was forced to rely on the alleged false statements, it was not erroneous to sustain a demurrer thereto and to dismiss the action. Browning v. Richardson, 181 Ga. 413 (182 S. E. 516); Stone v. Moore, 75 Ga. 565; Couch v. Crane, 142 Ga. 22 (82 S. E. 459) ; Kendall v. Wells, 126 Ga. 343 (55 S. E. 41); Arthur v. Brauner, 174 Ga. 477 (163 S. E. 604); Brannen v. Brannen, 135 Ga. 590 (69 S. E. 1079).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *611 Vester M. Owriby, for plaintiff. J. Herbert Johnson, for defendant.

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

Related

Bimbo Builders, Inc. v. STUBBS PROPERTIES, INC.
279 S.E.2d 730 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Roley v. Coffey
139 S.E.2d 290 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1964)
Hardin v. Baynes
198 Ga. 683 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)
Johnson v. Sherrer
29 S.E.2d 581 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 S.E.2d 360, 191 Ga. 610, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-isakson-ga-1941.