Legal Opinion

Ward v. Capital Automobile Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 18, 1936No. 25278PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. “Fraud” which, under the Code, § 82-101, authorizes the issuance of a possessory warrant to recover a personal chattel which has been taken, enticed, or carried away by fraud from the possession of the party complaining, is only that fraud by which the mere possession of the property is acquired, and is not fraud inhering in the procure*538ment of the contract tinder which the possession of the property was acquired. Jackson v. Sparks, 36 Ga. 445; Amos v. Dougherty, 65 Ga. 612; Welborn v. Shirly, 65 Ga. 695.

Decided June 18, 1936. J. D. Tindall, G. N. Davie, J. F. Kemp, for plaintiff in error.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Welborn v. ShirlySupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
  2. Amos v. DoughertySupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
  3. Jackson v. SparksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Capital Automobile Co. v. WardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API