Legal Opinion

Eliopolo v. Eicholz

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1926No. 4811PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.

1. “One having the capacity and opportunity to read a written contract, and who signs it, not under any emergency, and whose signature is not obtained by any trick or artifice of the other party, can not afterwards set up fraud in the procurement of his signature to the instrument.” Truitt-Silvey Hat Co. v. Callaway, 130 Ga. 637 (2) (61 S. E. 481); Stoddard Manufacturing Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802 (50 S. E. 915).

2. “Equity will not reform a written contract because of mistake as to the contents of the writing on the part of the complaining party (who was able to read), and fraud of the other…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Green v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  2. Stoddard Manufacturing Co. v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  3. Weaver v. RobersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  4. Truitt-Silvey Hat Co. v. Callaway & TruittSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  5. McElwaney v. MacDiarmidSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Dover v. BurnsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  2. National Accident & Health Insurance v. DavisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  3. Steadham v. CobbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  4. Lee v. LovelandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  5. Martin v. TurnerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918

8 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