Concealed Bed Corp. v. Williams

• Citation: 137 S.E. 275,36 Ga.App. 462
• Decision Date: 24 February 1927
• Docket Number: 17252.
• Parties: CONCEALED BED CORPORATION v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

137 S.E. 275

36 Ga.App. 462

CONCEALED BED CORPORATION v. WILLIAMS.

No. 17252.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 24, 1927

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by F G. Williams against the Concealed Bed Corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

F Graham Williams brought suit against the Concealed Bed Corporation, alleging:

That the defendant had injured and damaged him in the sum of $1,105, with interest thereon at 7 per cent. from October 24 1924; that the plaintiff on said date was a stockholder in the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Georgia; that the latter corporation was a distributor in the state of Georgia for the concealed or disappearing beds, manufactured by the defendant or the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago that at the said time the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Georgia, was indebted to the defendant or to the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, in the sum of $1,105 which the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Georgia, was unable to pay.

That the defendant, the Concealed Bed Corporation, "acting by and through its president J. A. Stephens, did at that time by fraud and false representations induce the plaintiff to pay said indebtedness for said Georgia corporation"; that "said fraud and false representations consisted of the statement by said president, Stephens, acting for defendant that the Concealed Bed Corporation and said Stephens had authority to negotiate for the Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, an agreement whereby if plaintiff would pay said account, shipments of parts and bed would be made by said Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, and the defendant to said Georgia corporation upon the terms set forth in the agreement hereto attached and marked 'Exhibit A' and that it would have said agreement ratified and approved by the proper officer of said Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, and that it was the bona fide intention of both of said corporations and of the said Stephens, as president of defendant, to enter into a valid and binding agreement with the plaintiff and said Georgia corporation, as set forth in said 'Exhibit A."'

That "all of said representations were false and fraudulent and were made knowingly by said Stephens acting for defendant for the purpose of including [[[[[inducing?] plaintiff to pay said $1.105 which they knew he was under no legal obligation to do, and without any intention whatsoever of ever complying with any of the terms of said agreement, and without any intention whatsoever at that time of ever performing or complying with any of the terms of the agreement, which is referred to as 'Exhibit B"'; that "said defendant or Stephens had no authority to make said agreement referred to as Exhibit A on behalf of said Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, and that its representation to plaintiff that it had such authority was fraudulent and false."

That "the payment of said sum of money by plaintiff was induced by said false and fraudulent representation and by the fraud of the defendant and its president, in that plaintiff charges that neither said defendant or its president ever had any intention of making or performing any of the terms of either of the agreements referred to as 'Exhibit A' and 'B,' but that it was a scheme and a plan on the part of the defendant and its president to induce the plaintiff to pay the debt of the Georgia corporation without obtaining anything whatsoever for it"; that neither "the defendant nor said Holmes Disappearing Bed Company, of Chicago, has performed any of the obligations stated in said contract marked 'Exhibit A,' but have breached all of the promises and agreement contained therein."

That "although repeatedly requested to do so by the plaintiff, said defendant has failed and refused to ship any of the beds or parts of beds referred to in said 'Exhibit A"'; that "by reason of said conduct and fraud and misrepresentation of said d...