Legal Opinion
Holliday v. Ashford
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided January 13, 1927No. 5516PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The Civil Code (1910), § 4122, provides: “In a sale of lands, if the purchase is per acre, a deficiency in the number of acres may be apportioned in the price. If the sale is by the tract or entire body, a deficiency in the quantity sold can not be apportioned. If the quantity is specified as ‘more or less/ this qualification will cover any deficiency not so gross as to justify the suspicion of willful deception, or mistake amounting to fraud; in this event the deficiency is apportionable; the purchaser may demand a rescission of the sale or an…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Kendall v. WellsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Riehle v. Bank of BullochvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924
- Land Trust Co. v. MorganCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Longino v. LathamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1893
- Roberts v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
3Cited by9 opinions
- Norris v. CoffeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Whiten v. Orr Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
- Martin v. PattonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Collier v. SinkoeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Dorsett v. RoberdsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.