Crawford v. Davison-paxon Co

• Decision Date: 08 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 22534.,22534.
• Citation: 46 Ga.App. 161,166 S.E. 872
• Parties: CRAWFORD. v. DAVISON-PAXON CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

46 Ga.App. 161

166 S.E. 872

CRAWFORD.

v.DAVISON-PAXON CO.

No. 22534.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Dec. 8, 1932.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Suit by the Davison-Paxon Company against T. J. Crawford. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's certiorari was overruled, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed..

Craighead & Craighead, Dwyer & Dwyer and Win. C. Henson, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

White, Poole, Pearce & Gershon, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

SUTTON, J.

A discharge in bankruptcy does not release a bankrupt from liability for obtaining property by false pretenses or by false representations. Orr Shoe Co. v. Upshaw & Powledge, 13 Ga. App. 501 (2), 79 S. E. 362; Brandt v. Klement. 20 Ga, App. 664, 93 S. E. 255. Such false representations may consist in the purchase of goods with no present purpose of paying for them, and in contemplation of fraudulent insolvency, and it is a question for the jury to determine from the evidence whether the circumstances adduced, even though they be slight, are sufficient to carry conviction of the existence of fraud perpetrated by such false representations. Atlanta Skirt Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs, 8 Ga. App. 299 (2), 68 S. E. 1077. The fact that the defendant, through his wife, purchased a large and extraordinary amount of expensive wearing apparel and other goods just prior to his bankruptcy, and while he was in a strained financial situation, together with the fact that the defendant in September informed a witness that he would have to bankrupt, and thereafter, until just before he was adjudicated a bankrupt permitted his wife to purchase goods from the plaintiff on credit, could be considered by the jury in determining whether the goods were purchased from the plaintiff with no present intention of paying for them and in contemplation of fraudulent insolvency. Atlanta Skirt Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs, supra; Donnelly Co. v. Milligan, 37 Ga. App. 530, 140 S. E. 918.

(a) The court did not err in charging the jury that if they believed that defendant's wife purchased the goods of the plaintiff as the agent of the defendant, with fraudulent intent not to pay for the same, and that herstatements were false and fraudulent, then her fraud would be imputable to the defendant, and his discharge in bankruptcy would not discharge him from liability for the goods, and that their verdict should be in favor of the...