Crawford v. Davison-Paxon Co.

• Decision Date: 08 December 1932
• Docket Number: 22534.
• Parties: CRAWFORD v. DAVISON-PAXON CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

166 S.E. 872

46 Ga.App. 161

CRAWFORD v. DAVISON-PAXON CO.

No. 22534.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

December 8, 1932

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Discharge in bankruptcy does not release bankrupt from liability for obtaining property by false pretenses or representations.

False representations precluding bankrupt's release from liability for property obtained thereby may consist of purchase of goods without intent to pay, and in contemplation of fraudulent insolvency.

That bankrupt's wife purchased large amount of goods just before bankruptcy, and after bankrupt informed witness he would have to go bankrupt, could be considered by jury in determining whether goods were purchased in contemplation of fraudulent insolvency.

Charge predicating recovery against bankrupt for goods sold bankrupt's wife upon finding that wife purchased them as bankrupt's agent with fraudulent intent not to pay for them held not error (Civ. Code 1910, § 2996).

Evidence authorized submission of issue whether bankrupt was guilty of fraud in allowing wife to purchase goods from creditor just before adjudication of bankruptcy (Civ. Code 1910, § 2996).

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 Wm. C. Henson, all of Atlanta for plaintiff in error.

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

Syllabus OPINION.

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...