Sutton v. Dye
Supreme Court of Georgia
Statute of limitations. Fraud. Before Judge Gibson. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 18 ¡7. Repoi’t unnecessary.
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Judge.
That the fraud complained of could and ought to have been discovered, long before suit was brought, is plainly apparent. Diligence to detect fraud is as much incumbent upon a party who labors under no disability, as to do any other act in which his interest is involved. He must look about him, and see what villainies environ him. If he has been caught in a net, he must feel for the meshes. . A principal ought to run down his accounts with his factor once in four years. Boobs, papers, everything, ought to be examined, and a final settlement had. He should be wakeful and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Conyers v. KenanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1848
- Freeman v. CraverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1876
- Shumate v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1866
- Pledger v. CoulterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
- Harrison v. AdcockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
3Cited by24 opinions
- Crawford v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Tucker v. National Linen Service Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
- Frost v. ArnaudSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Toombs CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Harrison v. HolsenbeckSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.