Flint-Ocmulgee Development Corp. v. Liles

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: STOLZ; QUILLIAN, P. J., and SHULMAN
• Citation: Flint-Ocmulgee Development Corp. v. Liles, 233 S.E.2d 25, 141 Ga.App. 163 (Ga. App. 1977)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1977
• Docket Number: FLINT-OCMULGEE,No. 2,No. 53162,53162,2
• Parties: DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. J. G. LILES

Page 25

233 S.E.2d 25

141 Ga.App. 163

FLINT-OCMULGEE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. J. G. LILES.

No. 53162.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Jan. 31, 1977.

Ham, Mills & Freeman, Phillip Benson Ham, Forsyth, for appellant.

W. B. Mitchell, Forsyth, for appellee.

STOLZ, Judge.

The defendant appeals from an adverse jury verdict and judgment in this action for damage alleged to have resulted from the defendant's agent's fraudulent representation that a certain road adjacent to property which was purchased by the plaintiff was a county public road when, in fact, it was not. Held:

The verdict and judgment were not authorized by the evidence. It affirmatively appeared in the plaintiff's own testimony that "at the time of the sale and negotiations before the sale, and I was told by Mr. McCarty (the defendant's secretary-treasurer) particularly, and at the time I signed the deed, on the day I signed the deed, the question of the roads came up again, and it was maintained that even though the county was claiming they hadn't accepted that portion of the roads, since they had taken both ends of it, that sometime or another, they were going to have to take the middle, and it would be just a matter of putting a little pressure possibly on the county to get them to do it."

Other testimony by the plaintiff showed conclusively that the foregoing occurred prior to his purchase of the property. Under the evidence, the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the road's status and cannot now complain. See Code § 105-302 and annotations; Blanchard v. West, 115 Ga.App. 814, 156...