Davidson v. Nalley Land & Inv. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 January 1929 |
| Docket Number | 19005. |
| Citation | 146 S.E. 559,39 Ga.App. 212 |
| Parties | DAVIDSON v. NALLEY LAND & INVESTMENT CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Person able to read, who signs contract without apprising himself of its contents otherwise than by accepting representations by opposite party, with whom there exists no fiduciary or confidential relation, cannot defend action on contract on ground that it does not contain contract actually made unless it appears that, at time of signing, some emergency existed as would excuse failure to read, or that failure to read was brought about by actual fraud such as would reasonably prevent signer from reading it.
Evidence that defendant ceased reading contract when told by plaintiff that homestead waiver clause to which he objected was stricken out, that there was no emergency such as would excuse failure to read contract or fraud preventing defendant from reading contract, though testimony showed defendant's eyesight was bad, that contract was signed under poor artificial light, but not showing eyesight was so defective as to prevent reading of contract, demanded verdict for plaintiff on issue of fraud in executing contract.
Where land for which purchase-money notes sued on were given was held by receiver, who turned property over to plaintiff as his agent, receiver and not agent was accountable for rents and profits, and hence issue whether defendant was entitled to credit on purchase-money note against plaintiff for fair rental value for premises for period during which plaintiff held land was properly excluded.
Error from Superior Court, Douglas County; C. E. Roop, Judge.
Action by the Nalley Land & Investment Company against H. D Davidson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. S. Edwards, of Buchanan, and J. R. Hutcheson, of Douglasville, for plaintiff in error.
J. J. Barge and Lawton Nalley, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
"Where one who can read signs a contract without apprising himself of its contents, otherwise than by accepting representations made by the opposite party, with whom there exists no fiduciary or confidential relation, he can not defend an action based on it, on the ground that it does not contain the contract actually made; unless it should appear that at the time he signed it some such emergency existed as would excuse his...
To continue reading
Request your trial