Bridges v. Pafford

• Decision Date: 05 October 1909
• Docket Number: (No. 1,780.)
• Citation: 65 S.E. 700,6 Ga.App. 689
• Parties: BRIDGES. v. PAFFORD.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

65 S.E. 700

6 Ga.App. 689

BRIDGES.

v.PAFFORD.

(No. 1, 780.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 5, 1909.

1. Fraud (§§ 41, 59^*)—Grounds of Action— Measure of Damages.

A. bought from B. a house and lot, and at the time of the purchase, in reply to A.'s question, B. informed him that the property was not leased for any definite period, but was occupied by a tenant at will.* Relying upon the truth of this statement, A. was induced to buy the property. The property was in fact under lease for a definite period, and A. could not get possession thereof until the expiration of the lease. B., when he made the statement to A. that the house was not under a definite lease, knew that this statement was untrue, and it tvas made for the purpose of deceiving A. and inducing him to buy the property. A. brought suit against B. to recover damages for deceit alleging the foregoing facts, and also alleging that the property had a rental market value of $20 per month, but that the tenant under the existing lease was only paying $13 per month. Held: (1) The allegations made a cause of action for deceit. (2) The measure of damages, under the allegations, is the difference between the rental market value of the property and the amount of rent actually paid by the tenant under his lease.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Fraud, Cent. Dig. §§ 36, 37, 60-62; Dec. Dig. §§ 41, 59.*]

2. Demurrer Properly Overruled.

The court did not err in overruling the demurrer. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Douglas; C. T. Roan, Judge.

Action by J. M. Pafford against 'Fannie Bridges. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Pafford sued Bridges for damages; his petition making the following allegations: On July 24, 1907, he purchased from the defendant, through her husband, who was acting as her agent in the transaction, a certain house and lot, known as the "Summerlin Hotel" and premises, for $1,500, paying $1,000 in cash and $500 in the following December. This purchase was made by the plaintiff, as was known to the defendant and her agent, for the purpose of a residence and of engaging in the hotel business January 1, 1908. Petitioner, at the time of the purchase, knew that the property was occupied by a tenant, and made special inquiry of the agent of the defendant at that time as to the length of the tenant's lease and the amount of rent that was being paid, and was informed by the agent that the tenant was paying $13 per month rent, and that there was no special contract of lease, and that petitioner could get actual possession of the property at any time he desired. After petitioner had paid for the property, and had made preparations to move and take possession thereof, he was requested by the agent of the defendant to permit the tenant to retain possession of the property until ...