Rogers v. Sinclair Refining Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1934
• Docket Number: 23587.
• Citation: 174 S.E. 207,49 Ga.App. 72
• Parties: ROGERS v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

174 S.E. 207

49 Ga.App. 72

ROGERS v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO.

No. 23587.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

April 4, 1934

Syllabus by the Court.

In actions for fraud, the representations relied on must relate to past or existing facts, and cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled predictions, and erroneous conjectures as to future events. The court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition.

Error from Superior Court, Cobb County; J. H. Hawkins, Judge.

Petition by L. O. Rogers against the Sinclair Refining Company. To review a judgment sustaining a general demurrer to, and dismissing, his petition, petitioner brings error.

Affirmed.

H. B Moss, of Marietta, for plaintiff in error.

J Richard Bowden, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

GUERRY Judge.

Plaintiff brought an action for fraud, alleging that the defendant company through its agent procured the lease of a certain filling station in Marietta from plaintiff at a rental value of 1 cent per gallon on all gasoline sold at that station that such contract was procured through fraud, in that defendant's agent and alter ego first gained the confidence of plaintiff by patronizing her beauty parlor having her to trim his hair, shave him, bringing his lady friends to her place of business, and having their hair dressed and paying for the same himself, and in being profuse in his protestations of friendship to plaintiff, having her play the piano for him and his lady friends to dance and giving to her a gold ring as a "token of profound friendship," and, during the patronage and protestation of friendship, incidentally suggesting to plaintiff that his company would give her double what she was getting from the Standard Oil Company for the rent of her filling station; the verbal trade between plaintiff and the said agent being that plaintiff was to get $100 per month for rent of her station; that he had shown such intimate friendship to her that when he wrote his book, "Life Psychology or The Art of Living," he brought her his manuscript to correct and criticize before he had it printed; that when the time arrived for the signing of the lease, he suggested to her that "he did not want the company to know that he made the suggestion that it was a much better contract to have 1 cent on the gallon than to have the $100 per month straight"; that the said agent had been in the oil and gas business and he knew which was the better of the two contracts; that since the signing of said contract defendant's agent immediately ceased his visits and attention; and that his representations that 1 cent per gallon would bring more revenue for the rent of said station than $100 per month have proven untrue and plaintiff has never received more than $50 any one month. Damages are claimed as the difference between the amounts actually received each month and the sum of $100 per month. A general demurrer was sustained and plaintiff excepted.

In actions for fraud actionable representations "must relate to past or existing facts and cannot consist of mere broken promises, unfulfilled predictions, or erroneous conjectures as to future events." 26 C.J. 1087. "Mere 'puffing' does not constitute legal fraud the same not being calculated to really mislead a purchaser, especially when he is afforded a full opportunity to form his own independent opinion as to the advisability of becoming a purchaser." Terhune v. Coker & Co., 107 Ga. 352, 33 S.E. 394. The plaintiff in this case was the owner of the property and was already renting the place as a filling station. She was offered twice as much rent for it by the agent of the defendant and was then made the offer of 1 cent per gallon, which he stated would be a better contract than the $100 per month. She had an equal...