Jackson v. Brown
| Decision Date | 12 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 17842,17842 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. BROWN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Harris, Chance & McCrackin, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
M. C. Barwick, Louisville, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
On July 27, 1951, Anthony Jackson filed a petition against named persons as Trustees of Loftin's Camp Ground, wherein he alleges: that he purchased a described lot of land on January 4, 1936, and that subsequently the Trustees of Loftin's Camp Ground came to him and fraudulently represented that the property was not the property of the one from whom he purchased it, but was the property of Loftin's Camp Ground, and that they as trustees held title thereto; that the trustees, well knowing their claim to be false and fraudulent insisted upon the petitioner executing a deed releasing the property to the trustees, and when petitioner stated to said Trustees that he desired to first make an investigation as to the title to the property, he was assured by the trustees that, if petitioner would go ahead and quitclaim the property to them, and it was later determined that they were mistaken as to their claim, they would reconvey the property to the petitioner; and, to induce and force the petitioner to convey the property without first letting him investigate as to the title, the trustees told him that, if he would sign the deed, and it was determined that the property was that of Loftin's Camp Ground, they would allow him to remain on the property for a period of fifteen years; but that, if he did not then and there sign the deed, and it was determined that the property was that of Loftin's Camp Ground, they would evict him from the property immediately; that he was an ignorant colored man, who had never before had any experience in the purchase of real estate, and relying upon the fraudulent statements made by the trustees, he executed a quitclaim deed to the trustees on July 20, 1936, reciting therein their claim of title to the property, and that he 'now finds that he has no title to said property,' and 'in order to settle the title to said property and to show that the matter has been adjusted between the party of the first part and the above trustees, the party of the first part does hereby sell and convey and quitclaim unto the parties of the second part, their successors and assigns' the described property, which deed contained a reservation in the petitioner of the right to live on the property for a period of fifteen years. He prays that the defendants be temporarily and permanently enjoined from interfering with the possession of said lot of land by the petitioner, and from proceeding in any manner to dispossess him, and that the agreement and quitclaim deed executed by him on July 20, 1938, be cancelled and declared void and of no effect. There are other allegations of the petition relative to another deed by other parties to the defendants, conveying the same property, which the plaintiff seeks to set aside as a cloud upon his title, but in the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to state these allegations. To the judgment of the trial court sustaining the general demurrer to his petition, the plaintiff excepts. Held:
1. While equity has jurisdiction to rescind and cancel a contract upon the ground of mistake of fact material to the contract of one party only, accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the other party, and may grant such relief even in case of negligence by the complainant, if it appears that the other party has not been prejudiced thereby, Code, §§ 37-207, 37-212; Hunnicutt v. Archer, 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Lattimore Land Corp.
...as to future acts. S & S Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Investment Corp., 219 Ga. 557, 564, 134 S.E.2d 777 (1964); Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78(2), 70 S.E.2d 756 (1952). But an action for fraud may in some cases be based upon the misrepresentation regarding such future act when the defendant k......
-
Williams v. Dresser Industries, Inc.
...214 Ga. at 305-306, 104 S.E.2d 427 (promise to make plaintiff a joint owner of property not actionable as fraud); Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 79, 70 S.E.2d 756 (1952) (promise to reconvey property in the future not actionable as fraud); Lively v. Garnick, 160 Ga.App. 591, 595-96, 287 S.E.......
-
S. & S. Builders, Inc. v. Equitable Inv. Corp., 22145
...and validity. "Fraud cannot be predicated upon statements which are promissory in their nature as to future acts.' Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 70 S.E.2d 756, 758. 'Representations which authorize an action for fraud and deceit must be made with reference to existing or past facts and not ......
-
Hertz Corporation v. Cox, 26251.
...in nature. In Georgia, a fraudulent misrepresentation must relate to existing or past facts, and not to future acts. Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 70 S.E.2d 756 (1952); Warner v. Jeter, 115 Ga.App. 6, 153 S.E. 2d 626 (1967); J. & C. Ornamental Iron Co. v. Watkins, 114 Ga.App. 688, 152 S.E.2......
-
RACE IN CONTRACT LAW.
...practically illiterate and totally incapable of reading and understanding" does not relieve the duty of due diligence); Jackson v. Brown, 70 S.E.2d 756, 757 (Ga. 1952) (refusing to cancel quitclaim deed made to a Black-owned campground business that used high-pressure tactics to keep "an ig......
-
CHAPTER 1 CHOOSING BETWEEN AN HONEST BARGAIN AND NO BARGAIN: INFORMATION DISCLOSURE TO POTENTIAL LESSORS
...[46] Infra, at 14-19. [47] See, e.g., Greenwich Contracting Co. v. Bonwit Construction Co., 239 A.2d 519 (Conn. 1968); Jackson v. Brown, 70 S.E.2d 756 (Ga. 1952); Geiger v. Hansen, 519 P.2d 699 (Kan. 1974). [48] See, e.g., Potucek v. Cordeleria Lourdes, 310 F.2d 527 (10th Cir. 1961); Puget ......