From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Edge v. Winters

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jul 10, 1951
66 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. 1951)

Opinion

17489.

SUBMITTED JUNE 12, 1951.

DECIDED JULY 10, 1951.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Vaughn. DeKalb Superior Court. April 12, 1951.

John L. Respess, James R. Venable, and Jackson L. Barwick, for plaintiff in error.

W. Harvey Armistead, contra.


Ordinarily a sale of land will not be vitiated by false representations respecting the same on the part of the seller, where the purchaser had sufficient opportunity to examine the premises but made no examination or investigation thereof and was not prevented from so doing by any artifice of the seller; and where the false assertion relates to the quality of the land or its proximity to a designated river, the purchaser will not be heard to complain, as he is wilfully negligent and does not exercise the slightest diligence if he fails to look and see for himself. Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 ( 41 S.E. 686), and citations.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.

No. 17489. SUBMITTED JUNE 12, 1951 — DECIDED JULY 10, 1951.


J. M. Edge brought a proceeding against W. E. Winters for the cancellation of three notes of $1000 each and a judgment for $1000. The allegations of the petition were substantially as follows: In the latter part of 1949 Winters approached R. A. Russell, plaintiff's brother in law, stating that he was the owner of a certain described tract of land in Levy County, Florida, which was located within 250 feet of the Suwanee River and a mile from the bridge on Highway 19; and that the land was cleared, lay in the heart of the watermelon and tobacco-growing section, and would make an ideal place for a fishing camp. For a period of nine months or more Winters sought to sell this property to Russell, who was interested in purchasing the land and discussed the purchase with plaintiff, and both Russell and plaintiff agreed that the land was worth the price of $4000 and was suitable for a fishing camp. Just before July 18, 1950, Winters told Russell he had to dispose of the Florida land to raise money to pay a pressing obligation, and Russell, who did not have the funds on hand, notified plaintiff, who contacted Winters. Winters stated that there were others who had desired to buy the land, reiterated the representation previously alleged as being made to Russell, and, relying on the representations, petitioner purchased the land, paying $1000 cash, executing three notes for $1000 each, and received a bond for title. Plaintiff did not investigate the representation as to the location of the land because of its remoteness, his confidence in Winters, and the haste in closing the transaction. He learned that the land was not located as represented by Winters, but was four or more miles from the river and three and two-tenths miles from the bridge, was hammock and forest land, unfit for farming, and showed no signs of having been cultivated. Plaintiff alleges that the representations as to the location and condition of the land were wilful misrepresentations and, upon discovering this fact, the plaintiff offers to restore the status. It was further alleged that Winters had threatened to transfer and assign the notes. The prayer was for the cancellation of the notes, judgment for $1000, and injunction.

A rule nisi was issued and a restraining order granted. Winters filed general and special demurrers. The trial judge sustained a general demurrer to the petition, and did not rule upon special demurrers. Exception is to this order.


Summaries of

Edge v. Winters

Supreme Court of Georgia
Jul 10, 1951
66 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. 1951)
Case details for

Edge v. Winters

Case Details

Full title:EDGE v. WINTERS

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Jul 10, 1951

Citations

66 S.E.2d 57 (Ga. 1951)
66 S.E.2d 57

Citing Cases

Webb v. Jones

3. Special demurrers were sustained to the answer of only one of the appellants but in that instance the same…

Hays v. McGinness

As to such things as quality and condition which are open to inspection, he is wilfully negligent if he fails…