Yawn v. Powell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Yawn v. Powell

246 S.E.2d 737, 146 Ga. App. 554, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2454

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 3, 1978

Docket56038

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 246 S.E.2d 737 (Yawn v. Powell) 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

Yawn v. Powell, 246 S.E.2d 737, 146 Ga. App. 554, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2454 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiffs brought suit on two notes, seeking to recover principal and interest due them. The defendants answered and counterclaimed for fraud in the procurement of the sale of a certain business which was the underlying basis of the two notes. This appeal followed the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff. Held:

From an examination of the present record there are no grounds, for reversing the trial judge’s finding that because of defendants’ actions they ratified any alleged *555 fraud on the part of the plaintiff and now are estopped to assert such defense. Massey v. Electrical Wholesalers, 137 Ga. App. 829 (224 SE2d 811); Manning v. Wills, 193 Ga. 82, 90 (3) (17 SE2d 261). Accord, Tuttle v. Stovall, 134 Ga. 325 (67 SE 806); Gibson v. Alford, 161 Ga. 672, 673 (5) (132 SE 442); Brown v. Nixon, 231 Ga. 619, 622 (203 SE2d 200).

Submitted June 8, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978. Van Cheney, for appellants. Wensley Hobby, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and McMurray, JJ., concur.

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

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

The plaintiffs brought suit on two notes, seeking to recover principal and interest due them. The defendants answered and counterclaimed for fraud in the procurement of the sale of a certain business which was the underlying basis of the two notes. This appeal followed the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff. Held:

From an examination of the present record there are no grounds, for reversing the trial judge’s finding that because of defendants’ actions they ratified any alleged *555 fraud on the part of the plaintiff and now are estopped to assert such defense. Massey v. Electrical Wholesalers, 137 Ga. App. 829 (224 SE2d 811); Manning v. Wills, 193 Ga. 82, 90 (3) (17 SE2d 261). Accord, Tuttle v. Stovall, 134 Ga. 325 (67 SE 806); Gibson v. Alford, 161 Ga. 672, 673 (5) (132 SE 442); Brown v. Nixon, 231 Ga. 619, 622 (203 SE2d 200).

Submitted June 8, 1978 Decided July 3, 1978. Van Cheney, for appellants. Wensley Hobby, for appellees.

Judgment affirmed.

Webb and McMurray, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 S.E.2d 737, 146 Ga. App. 554, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yawn-v-powell-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack