West v. Carolina Housing & Mortgage Corp.
This text of 89 S.E.2d 188 (West v. Carolina Housing & Mortgage Corp.) 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.
Opinion
1. “One having the capacity and opportunity to read a written contract, and who signs it, not under any emergency, and whose signature is not obtained by any trick or artifice of the other party, can not afterwards set up fraud in the procurement of his signature to the instrument.” Truitt-Silvey Hat Co. v. Callaway & Truitt, 130 Ga. 637 (61 S. E. 481); Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596 (6 S. E. 2d 788).
2. The petitioners’ allegations, as finally amended, being that they were ignorant colored people, practically illiterate, and totally incapable of reading and understanding the nature of the papers presented to them for their signature; that it was late at night, and there was no one to turn to for advice and guidance at that time; and that they were, therefore, required to rely upon the representations of the agents of one of the defendants, which were false, are totally insufficient to relieve them of due diligence or to show any emergency making it necessary for them to sign without delay; and there being no fiduciary relationship between the parties, the petition fails to allege a cause of action, and the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer and in dismissing the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 S.E.2d 188, 211 Ga. 789, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-v-carolina-housing-mortgage-corp-ga-1955.