Morrison v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 30 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | 14319. |
| Citation | 23 S.E.2d 164,195 Ga. 45 |
| Parties | MORRISON et al. v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Abrahams Bouhan, Atkinson, & Lawrence, Shelby Myrick, and Geo. H Richter, pro se, all of Savannah, for plaintiffs in error.
Emanuel Kronstadt, of Savannah, for defendant in error.
1. 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 cannot defend an action based on it, or have it canceled or reformed, 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 failure to read it, or that his failure to read it was brought about by some misleading artifice or device perpetrated by the opposite party, amounting to actual fraud such as would reasonably prevent him from reading it. Stoddard Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 122 Ga. 802, 803, and cit., 50 S.E. 915; Rounsaville & Bro. v. Leonard Mfg Co., 127 Ga. 735(2), 56 S.E. 1030; Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596, 598, and cit., 6 S.E.2d 788; Tinsley v. Gullett Gin Co., 21 Ga.App. 512(2), 516, 94 S.E. 892; Odum v. Cotton States Fertilizer Co., 38 Ga.App. 46(2), 142 S.E. 470; Gossett & Sons v. Wilder, 46 Ga.App. 651(7) 653, 168 S.E. 903; Hodge v. Milam, 48 Ga.App. 105, 171 S.E. 870. Accordingly, the evidence at the interlocutory hearing on this petition by a vendee against the vendor of real estate and others, for injunction, reformation of the written contract of sale, and other equitable relief, failed to show any basis for such relief on the ground of fraud, where the only showing by the petitioner was that the vendor at the time of the execution of the contract made misrepresentations to her to the effect that $25 monthly installments would cover all payments of principal and interest; whereas the instrument required that additional interest at 8 per cent. should be paid on each such monthly installment from the date of the contract; and where it further appeared that the vendee was an educated teacher, who testified that she "half-way read the contract"; and where no other proof was made such as would bring the transaction within any of the exceptions stated in the foregoing rule.
2. While it is true, as recognized by the Code, § 20-116, that where parties, in the course of the performance of a contract, depart from its terms and pay or receive money under such departure, a modification by way of a quasi new agreement will be implied, still, in order for this rule to have application, it is necessary that the circumstances be such as will in law imply a mutual new agreement, so that the modification, when taken in connection with the original contract, will provide a new and distinct agreement complete in its terms. Bearden Mercantile Co. v. Madison Oil Co., 128 Ga. 695 (4), 703, 58 S.E. 200; Southern Feed Stores v. Sanders, 193 Ga. 884(3), 887, 20 S.E.2d 413; Kennesaw Guano Co. v. Miles, 132 Ga. 763, 770, and cit., 64 S.E. 1087; Ball v. Foundation Co., 25 Ga.App. 126, 103 S.E. 422; Jones v. Lawman, 56 Ga.App. 764, 771, 194 S.E. 416. Thus, in applying the rule just stated, while it has several times been held that a course of dealings, under which belated insurance premiums have been accepted so as to induce a belief on the part of the insured that payments will be received within a reasonable time after maturity, will modify the contract to
the extent that a premium may be paid within a reasonable time after its maturity (Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World v. Hart, 187 Ga. 304, 309, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheat v. Montgomery
...so, and absent any fiduciary relationship existing between him and the party procuring his signature to the instrument, Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45, 23 S.E.2d 164; Drew v. Lyle, 88 Ga.App. 121, 123, 76 S.E.2d 142; Thomas v. Byrd, 107 Ga.App. 234, 129 S.E.2d 566; Southern Stages v. Fulli......
-
Dawes Min. Co., Inc. v. Callahan
...a contracting party has a duty to read the contract or to exercise reasonable care in the event he cannot read. See Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga., 45, 23 S.E.2d 164 (1942), and citations; Robertson v. Panlos, 208 Ga. 116, 120, 65 S.E.2d 400 (1951); Cochran v. Murrah, 235 Ga. 304, 305, 219 S.......
-
Wall v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia
...read and write and is not otherwise under any disability, is that fraud which prevents him from reading what he signed. Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45(1), 23 S.E.2d 164; Bradley v. Swift & Co., 93 Ga.App. 842(3), 93 S.E.2d 364; De Long v. Cobb, 215 Ga. 500, 505, 111 S.E.2d 89; Bonds v. Bon......
-
Smith v. Standard Oil Co.
...she found it did not contain the reservations and conditions she had been led by the optionee to believe were in it. In Morrison v. Roberts, 195 Ga. 45, 23 S.E.2d 164, this court held: 'Where one who can read signs a contract without apprising himself of its contents, otherwise than by acce......