Henry v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 08 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | 33337,Nos. 33336,s. 33336 |
| Citation | 245 S.E.2d 646,241 Ga. 360 |
| Parties | HENRY v. THOMAS et al. THOMAS et al. v. HENRY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Gilbert & Blum, Fred A. Gilbert, Atlanta, for appellant.
Kinney, Kemp, Pickell, Avrett & Sponcler, Henry C. Tharpe, Jr., Dalton, Murphy, Witcher & Murphy, Jack F. Witcher, Bremen, for appellees.
In March, 1974, appellant Clifford D. Henry purchased a 57-acre tract of land bordering on the Carter Dam Lake project from the appellees or their assignors. This litigation arises from a complaint filed by Henry against the sellers of this property seeking to set aside the sale or in the alternative to reform the purchase price of the sales contract.
Appellant alleged that subsequent to the consummation of the transaction between appellant and appellees, the United States Corps of Engineers altered the access to the property which he had purchased. This alteration occurred when the Corps of Engineers erected a barricade across a dirt road adjacent to a public parking lot on property owned by the Corps of Engineers approximately one and one-half miles west of the appellant's property. Appellant contends that this action blocked the western entrance into the purchased property and resulted in a reduction in the fair market value of the property from the $4,000 per acre which he had contracted to pay down to a current fair market value of only $1,000 per acre. His complaint alleged in three counts that the parties to the sales contract were laboring under a mutual mistake as to the road's continued existence, entitling appellant to reformation, or a mistake, on appellant's part, entitling him to rescind.
During the presentation of his case, appellant testified that he retained access to the purchased property from the eastern end of the road in question and that while he had discovered this alteration in the access to his property during the summer of 1974, he made no request to rescind, modify or otherwise alter the transaction between the parties. Appellant retained possession of the property, and in March, 1975, made a principal and interest payment on the note he had executed to the appellees. In March, 1976, he made an interest-only payment. Appellant testified that all documents relating to this transaction were prepared by his legal counsel and contained his instructions relative to the transaction.
On cross examination appellant further conceded that there was no reliance on any statements made to him by appellees nor did the appellees misrepresent any of the facts relevant to this transaction.
At the close of plaintiff's evidence, defendants made motions for a directed verdict on each count of plaintiff's complaint, which were granted. Plaintiff appeals. We affirm.
1. Appellant's only enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for defendants. The trial court correctly relied in its ruling on the analogous case of Fleetwood Investments v. Bartow American Legion Home etc., 215 Ga. 720(2), 113 S.E.2d 123, 124 (1960). In that case this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. McCormack (In re Mitchell)
...relief, but a mistake in opinion or mental conclusion as to an uncertain future event is not ground for relief." Henry v. Thomas, 241 Ga. 360, 361, 245 S.E.2d 646, 648 (1978) (quoting Callan Court Co. v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 184 Ga. 87, 130, 190 S.E. 831, 854 (1937) ). The Defendant's ......
-
US v. Ownbey Enterprises, Inc.
...initial pleadings were filed did Defendant allege that it signed the agreement under a mistake of present fact. See Henry v. Thomas, 241 Ga. 360, 245 S.E.2d 646 (1978). 4. Changed Circumstances. This defense is actually another mechanism to try and invoke the Court's equity powers to modify......
-
Lenawee County Bd. of Health v. Messerly
...which is found to be in error may not be, in substance, a prediction as to a future occurrence or non-occurrence. Henry v. Thomas, 241 Ga. 360, 245 S.E.2d 646 (1978); Hailpern v. Dryden, 154 Colo. 231, 389 P.2d 590 (1964). But see Denton v. Utley, 350 Mich. 332, 86 N.W.2d 537 The Court of A......
-
Henry v. Duvall, 34304
...access to the property. We affirmed the grant of a directed verdict in favor of the grantors on one of the tracts in Henry v. Thomas, 241 Ga. 360, 245 S.E.2d 646 (1978). Since this case, here on appeal from a grant of summary judgment, is controlled by the same principle of law, that equity......