Beach v. Fleming, s. 20116
| Decision Date | 11 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | 20117,Nos. 20116,s. 20116 |
| Citation | 214 Ga. 303,104 S.E.2d 427 |
| Parties | T. N. BEACH et al. v. T. Q. FLEMING et al. Arthur TRUE v. T. Q. FLEMING et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
For the reasons stated in the opinion, the judgments in these cases must be reversed.
T. Q. Fleming brought suit against Arthur True, T. N. Beach, and W. B. Leedy & Company, Inc., alleging in substance: That the plaintiff had discovered that a large and very desirable tract of land located on St. Simons Island, Georgia, and known as the St. Clair Tract could be purchased; that said tract was owned by several named parties, and plaintiff realized that it was a very desirable tract of land and was interested in purchasing it; that the plaintiff had known the tract of land for many, many years and about February, 1955, he went over to St. Simons Island and contacted the defendant True and advised him that he understood the land could be purchased, and the two of them together went to look over the land. The defendant True was interested in purchasing the property jointly with the plaintiff and represented to him that he would secure financing to enable them to purchase the property. For the reason that, a number of years previously, the plaintiff had difficulty with one of the owners, to wit, Millard Reese, it was suggested by the plaintiff that the defendant True undertake to negotiate the purchase of the property, and they were to put up jointly the money necessary for the down payment and to close the transaction, and the defendant True was to secure a loan covering the balance. The said True approached the owners of the property and secured a written option upon the payment of $5,000, all been made were made by the True. The said option contained a provision that, upon the payment of an additional $5,000 within 90 days, that it was automatically converted to a 60 day sales contract at and for the total purchase price of $150,000. It is alleged that the plaintiff advanced and paid the second $5,000, which was all of the money paid by either of the parties prior to the closing of the transaction; and that after working on this deal from February, 1955, the same took definite shape on or about November 18, 1955, at which time the aforementioned option was secured.
During all of the months from February until November and from November until the following April, when the deal was closed, the plaintiff was constantly advising with said defendant True in regard to the transaction. It is further alleged that it was understood between them that they were to equally advance the money necessary to close this transaction with True securing a loan upon the property for the balance of the purchase price; and that they were to own the property jointly; that said True called upon said defendant Beach, and then advised the plaintiff that Beach had agreed to advance the money necessary to close out the transaction and pay off all parties demanding cash.
The petition also alleges that the plaintiff would have been able to have secured financing of this property had he not relied upon the representations of the defendant True. The petition then alleges that the defendant True and the defendant Beach and defendant W. B. Leedy & Company, Inc., 'conspired and connived to defraud your petitioner out of this property and/or his interest therein by taking title to said property for themselves to the exclusion of the petitioner and that on April 25, 1956, the defendant True took a deed from the sellers in his own name, the sale contract having been extended to this date by the sellers, and that forthwith and on the same day defendant True deeded this property in its entirety to defendant Beach, and six days later, on May 1, 1956, the defendant Beach deeded the property to defendant W. B. Leedy & Company, Inc., and the defendant Beach was acting as agent for W. B. Leedy & Company, inc.,' in this transaction. It is further alleged that, on the day following the taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayes v. Irwin
...failure to comply with the promise to perform an act in the future is normally not actionable with respect to fraud, Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 104 S.E.2d 427 (1958), Ely v. Stratoflex, 132 Ga.App. 569, 208 S.E.2d 583 (1974); but a cause of action for fraud may arise when the failure to......
-
Williams v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
...to future acts, but rather the representation made must have been made with respect to existing or past facts. See Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 306, 104 S.E.2d 427 (1958); Guernsey, cited supra, 183 Ga.App. at 793, 359 S.E.2d 920; Gilreath v. Argo, 135 Ga.App. 849, 851, 219 S.E.2d 461 (19......
-
S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Inv. Corp., 22145
...It follows, the allegations in the petition are not such as to authorize action for fraud to be based upon them. * * *' Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 104 S.E.2d 427. 5. Parol evidence of the alleged verbal agreement to make available construction loans is not admissible on the grounds that......
-
Jones v. International Inventors Inc. East
...or representation as to future facts or events. See, e.g., Musgrove v. Musgrove, 213 Ga. 610, 100 S.E.2d 577 (1957); Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 104 S.E.2d 427 (1958). Similarly the aggrieved party must have had a right to rely upon the misrepresentation and actually have relied upon it.......