Legal Opinion
Edenfield v. Rountree
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 12, 1925No. 15610PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
It is a well-established general rule that “the doctrine of caveat emptor applies to administrators’ sales;” and the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 4122, for apportionment of the purchase price on account of deficiency of acreage, or a rescission of the sale, have no application to such sales. McKinnon v. Sheffield, 149 Ga. 219 (1) (99 S. E. 855); Greer v. McDonald, 141 Ga. 309 (80 S. E. 1002); Mercer v. Sager, 129 Ga. 123 (58 S. E. 1037); Thrift v. Baker, 144 Ga. 508 (87 S. E. 676); Civil Code (1910), § 4032. Thus, it has been stated as a general rule that, “when one applies to an…
2Cases cited35 opinions
- Hecht v. Snook & Austin Furniture Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Folsom v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- House v. OliverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- National Bank v. CarltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
- Brannen v. BrannenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Porter v. Davey Tree-Expert Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Georgia Casualty Co. v. McRitchieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Bank of Bullochville v. RiehleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927
- Autry v. PalmourCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
- Brady v. SmothermanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.