Legal Opinion

Hurst v. Goldstein Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 11, 1919No. 10578Published

Complaint—garnishment; from Haralson superior court—Judge Irwin. March 22, 1919.

1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.

1. “Where land is bargained by the tract, a deficiency in the acreage can not be apportioned unless the purchaser can show that actual fraud was perpetrated by the vendor.” Parker v. Roberts, 19 Ga. App. 270 (91 S. E. 345), and eases cited.

(а) “Where, in a suit on a note for the purchase-money of land so conveyed, the maker of the note undertakes to have an alleged deficiency in acreage apportioned in the amount of the recovery, but does not allege and prove actual fraud on the part of the vendor, the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment in the whole amount of the note sued on.” Parker v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Estes v. OdomSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
  2. Parker v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917

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

Powered by the Exa API