Legal Opinion

Hood v. Duren

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 15, 1924No. 15345PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

Something might be said in elaboration of the principle of law contained in the 3d division of the syllabus. It has been laid down as a general rule that “the doctrine of estoppel has no application to infants.” 31 Corpus Juris, 1005, § 33. It accordingly appears that in some jurisdictions - the doctrine of estoppel is pais is not permitted to bind minors to an engagement, even though it may appear that the other party to the agreement has been induced to act to his injury by reason of the fraudulent conduct of the minor with reference thereto. There are decisions in jurisdictions in which…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Goodman v. WinterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1879
  2. Kilgore v. JordanTexas Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Whittington v. Doe ex dem. WrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
  4. Groves v. . WareSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  5. Davidson v. YoungIllinois Supreme Court · 1865

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. TaggartCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
  3. Rieves v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  4. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. HallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  5. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Mills Plumbing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1979

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API