Wrenn & Sons v. Truitt

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wrenn & Sons v. Truitt

43 S.E. 52, 116 Ga. 708, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 227

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 11, 1902·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

ITsh, J.

One is not liable,'in an action of deceit, for the expression of a mere opinion as to the solvency or credit of another, though made in writing. The statement shown by the plaintiffs to have been made by the defendant was mere matter of opinion, and was of itself sufficient to suggest inquiry on the part of the plaintiffs. If they relied upon it, they did so at their own risk.

The verdict for the defendant was demanded and the overruling of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was proper, irrespectively of the alleged errors of the court in admitting evidence and in instructing the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, jP. J., absent.

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

ITsh, J.

One is not liable,'in an action of deceit, for the expression of a mere opinion as to the solvency or credit of another, though made in writing. The statement shown by the plaintiffs to have been made by the defendant was mere matter of opinion, and was of itself sufficient to suggest inquiry on the part of the plaintiffs. If they relied upon it, they did so at their own risk.

The verdict for the defendant was demanded and the overruling of the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial was proper, irrespectively of the alleged errors of the court in admitting evidence and in instructing the jury.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, jP. J., absent.

Wrenn & Sons v. Truitt, 43 S.E. 52, 116 Ga. 708, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 227 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

43 S.E. 52 (Wrenn & Sons v. Truitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related