Ambrose v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 23 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 40765,40765,3 |
| Citation | 109 Ga.App. 881,137 S.E.2d 573 |
| Parties | Sarah J. AMBROSE v. Bill R. BROOKS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wotton, Long, Jones & Read, Charles D. Read, Jr., Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
R. T. Bartholomew, James A. White, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The petition alleged that the plaintiff was induced to execute a contract with the defendants for the construction and installation of a 'bomb shelter' on her premises, and a note and security deed in consideration thereof, by the false and fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendants that the shelter would be moisture proof and would be installed completely underground. The plaintiff alleged that the shelter when constructed and installed was unsatisfactory in these particulars and complaint was made to the defendants who assured her that the alleged defects would be corrected to her satisfaction, and that in reliance on the representations of the defendants that the desired corrections would be made, she executed a 'completion certificate' and notified the transferee of the note that the work had been satisfactorily performed. The petition which alleged that the defendants did wilfully and knowingly conspire, confederate, combine, agree and have tacit understanding among themselves and with one another to defraud the plaintiff in the manner and means enumerated, sought judgment against the defendants for $1,770 actual damages, $5,000 punitive damages and $5,000 attorney's fees.
The trial court sustained the general demurrer to the petition and the exception is to that judgment. Held:
1. '[F]raud cannot be predicated upon statements which are promissory in their nature as to future acts.' Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 80, 70 S.E.2d 756, 758; Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 104 S.E.2d 427. 'Representations which authorize an action for fraud and deceit must be made with reference to existing or past facts and not to future acts.' Monroe v. Goldberg, 80 Ga.App. 770, 775, 57 S.E.2d 448, 451. 'In actions for fraud, the representations relied on must relate to past or existing facts and cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled predictions, and erroneous conjectures as to future events.' Rogers v. Sinclair Refining Co., 49 Ga.App. 72, 174 S.E. 207. If the representations do not relate to past or existing facts, it is immaterial that the alleged defrauded party acted in reliance on them to his detriment, Crozier v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hertz Corporation v. Cox, 26251.
...Ga.App. 510, 151 S.E.2d 881 (1966); Strickland v. Levy's of Savannah, Inc., 112 Ga.App. 665, 145 S.E.2d 831 (1965); Ambrose v. Brooks, 109 Ga.App. 881, 137 S.E.2d 573 (1964); Monroe v. Goldberg, 80 Ga.App. 770, 57 S.E.2d 448 (1950); Cosby v. Asher, 74 Ga.App. 884, 41 S.E. 2d 793 (1947); Cro......
-
Stahl v. Balsara
...Chevrolet Company, 31 Ill.2d 507, 202 N.E.2d 516 (1964); Leece v. Griffin, 150 Colo. 132, 371 P.2d 264 (1962); Ambrose v. Brooks, 109 Ga.App. 881, 137 S.E.2d 573 (1964). Furthermore, we hold that the representations made by appellee to appellant constituted mere prognostication or prophecy ......
-
Clinton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...Co., 44 Ga.App. 807(2), 163 S.E. 273; Gibraltar Fire &c. Ins. Co. v. Lanier, 64 Ga.App. 269(3), 13 S.E.2d 27; Ambrose v. Brooks, 109 Ga.App. 881(1), 137 S.E.2d 573. See, Printup v. Alexander, 69 Ga. The statements attributed to the adjuster that plaintiff 'would receive a settlement and sat......
-
Ely v. Stratoflex, Inc.
...Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 70 S.E.2d 756; Motors Ins. Corp. v. Morgan, 117 Ga.App. 654, 161 S.E.2d 382. See, e.g., Ambrose v. Brooks, 109 Ga.App. 881, 137 S.E.2d 573. There is no question that the promises made by defendant's agent to Ely were prospective in nature and therefore fall wit......