From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Garrison v. Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 28, 1978
242 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1978)

Opinion

33178.

ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1978.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1978.

Cancellation, etc. Fulton Superior Court. Before Judge Williams.

Pye, Groover Pye, Durwood T. Pye, for appellant.

Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Bruce M. Edenfield, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


This is the seventh case involving unbuilt Interstate 485 (I-485) to come before this court. This is an appeal from the trial court's order dismissing the August, 1975, complaint which sought cancellation of a deed to the Department of Transportation executed by appellant in October, 1967. A copy of the deed was attached to the original complaint. After our decision in Knight v. Dept. of Transportation, 239 Ga. 368, 370 ( 236 S.E.2d 826) (1977), in which we pointed out that the Knights claimed duress but did not claim fraud, the complaint in the present case was amended to allege fraud, duress and coercion. However, appellant does not, indeed could not, allege that the price paid and received for the land in question was not agreed upon as the value of the land.

Pye v. State Hwy. Dept., 226 Ga. 389 ( 175 S.E.2d 510) (1970); Pye v. State Hwy. Dept., 227 Ga. 315 ( 180 S.E.2d 355) (1971); Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, 236 Ga. 396 ( 223 S.E.2d 819) (1976); Dept. of Transportation v. Knight, 238 Ga. 225 ( 232 S.E.2d 72) (1977); Knight v. Dept. of Transportation, 239 Ga. 368, supra; Shoemaker v. Dept. of Transportation, 240 Ga. 573 (1978).

The form of the deed in this case is identical to the deed we previously upheld in Dept. of Transportation v. Knight, 238 Ga. 225 ( 232 S.E.2d 72) (1977). By amendment the complaint alleges that the deed was procured in various ways amounting to fraud, duress and coercion, which were concealed from appellant until November, 1974, when it was announced that I-485 would not be built. As to some of these allegations, they are barred by the statute of limitations ( Knight v. Dept. of Transportation, 239 Ga. 368, 370, supra; O'Quinn v. O'Quinn, 237 Ga. 653 ( 229 S.E.2d 428) (1976), and laches ( Emhart Corp. v. McLarty, 226 Ga. 621, 624 ( 176 S.E.2d 698) (1970); Stephens v. Walker, 193 Ga. 330, 331 ( 18 S.E.2d 537) (1942); O'Quinn v. O'Quinn, 237 Ga. 653, supra. Misrepresentations as to questions of law do not give rise to an action for fraud. Knight v. Dept of Transportation, 239 Ga. 371, supra; Gignilliat v. Borg, 131 Ga. App. 182, 183-184 ( 205 S.E.2d 479) (1974); Williams v. Dougherty County, 101 Ga. App. 193 ( 113 S.E.2d 168) (1960). See Code Ann. § 105-302; see also Wood v. Puritan Chemical Co., 178 Ga. 229 (1) ( 172 S.E. 557) (1934); Code Ann. § 89-903. Allegations of duress, threat and coercion based on the premise that the Department of Transportation had the power to and would condemn the appellant's property if appellant did not execute the deed have no merit. This power to condemn clearly existed. Sadtler v. City of Atlanta, supra, 236 Ga. at 397-398; Pye v. State Hwy. Dept., 226 Ga. 389 supra, (1) (3-7) (10, 11). "It is a general rule that an act must be wrongful to constitute duress, and it is not duress to threaten to do what one has a legal right to do... The threat to bring a civil proceeding against a person is not duress in the legal sense." Causey v. Matson, 215 Ga. 306, 311 ( 110 S.E.2d 356) (1959). We have considered the plaintiff's complaint as amended and conclude that the trial court did not err.

Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.


ARGUED JANUARY 10, 1978 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 28, 1978.


Summaries of

Garrison v. Department of Transportation

Supreme Court of Georgia
Feb 28, 1978
242 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1978)
Case details for

Garrison v. Department of Transportation

Case Details

Full title:GARRISON v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Date published: Feb 28, 1978

Citations

242 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1978)
242 S.E.2d 615

Citing Cases

Star Laundry v. City of Warner Robins

However, even if the mayor did implicitly make such a representation to the appellants, it could not be…