Thomason & Son v. Goldman & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thomason & Son v. Goldman & Co.

71 S.E. 596, 9 Ga. App. 349, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 547

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1911

Docket2962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 596 (Thomason & Son v. Goldman & 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

Thomason & Son v. Goldman & Co., 71 S.E. 596, 9 Ga. App. 349, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

X. Where one has been induced to sign a written contract by false and fraudulent representations as to its contents, made by the opposite party with intent to deceive and which did deceive .him, he may set up this fraud as a defense to a suit on notes based upon the contract thus obtained; and this is especially true where, in addition to the false and fraudulent representations as to the contents of the con-' tract, the conduct and representations of the party who made them relieve the opposite party from the imputation of negligence in signing the contract without first reading it. Wood v. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co., 96 Ga. 120 (22 S. E. 909) ; McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 442 (30 S. E. 999) ; Angier v. Brewster, 69 Ga. 362; Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Beckwith, 4 Ga. App. 245 (61 S. E. 149).

2. The ruling above announced does not contravene the well-established rule that parol evidence will not be admitted to add to, take from, or vary the terms of a valid written agreement; for the purpose of the parol evidence admissible under the ruling is to disprove the existence of the contract, and not to contradict it.

3. A plea alleging a state of facts substantially as stated above constituted a good defense, if proved, to the notes based on the contract so procured, and the court erred in not allowing it. Judgment reversed.

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

Hill, C. J.

X. Where one has been induced to sign a written contract by false and fraudulent representations as to its contents, made by the opposite party with intent to deceive and which did deceive .him, he may set up this fraud as a defense to a suit on notes based upon the contract thus obtained; and this is especially true where, in addition to the false and fraudulent representations as to the contents of the con-' tract, the conduct and representations of the party who made them relieve the opposite party from the imputation of negligence in signing the contract without first reading it. Wood v. Cincinnati Safe & Lock Co., 96 Ga. 120 (22 S. E. 909) ; McBride v. Publishing Co., 102 Ga. 442 (30 S. E. 999) ; Angier v. Brewster, 69 Ga. 362; Marietta Fertilizer Co. v. Beckwith, 4 Ga. App. 245 (61 S. E. 149).

2. The ruling above announced does not contravene the well-established rule that parol evidence will not be admitted to add to, take from, or vary the terms of a valid written agreement; for the purpose of the parol evidence admissible under the ruling is to disprove the existence of the contract, and not to contradict it.

3. A plea alleging a state of facts substantially as stated above constituted a good defense, if proved, to the notes based on the contract so procured, and the court erred in not allowing it. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 596, 9 Ga. App. 349, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomason-son-v-goldman-co-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack