Smith v. Holman

Decision Date14 February 1968
Docket NumberNo. 43321,No. 1,43321,1
Citation160 S.E.2d 533,117 Ga.App. 248
PartiesR. W. SMITH v. H. M. HOLMAN
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

William T. Brooks, Atlanta, for appellant.

Lee Evans, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

EBERHARDT, Judge.

1. Where the pleading were filed prior to September, 1, 1967, the court may elect to deal with them under the procedural law as it existed when the pleadings were filed, in which event provisions of the Civil Practice Act have no application. Abercrombie v. Ledbetter-Johnson Co., 116 Ga.App. 376, 378, 157 S.E.2d 493.

2. A petition was not subject to general demurrer when it allegeed that plaintiff a resident of Hartford, Alabama, had been defrauded of $36,000 by the defendant Smith, a resident of Fulton County, Georgia, by means of a conspiracy between Smith and one who represented himself to be and whom Smith introduced to plaintiff as John C. Martin, a resident of Washington, D.C., and further alleged that Smith, learning that plaintiff was in need of storage facilities in his grain business, had represented that Martin was the administrator of the estate of Silas McCormick which owned ten storage tanks at Oswego Station, Virginia, which he had seen and which were in good condition, that the estate wished to dispose of them, and that he (Smith) had himself purchased a flat storage building from the administrator for $11,000, having learned about its availability through a newspaper advertisement. Plaintiff had expressed interest in purchasing the storage tanks, and subsequently Smith called him on the telephone, arranged a meeting of the three in Atlanta, and plaintiff came up for the meeting, discussed with them the tanks, price, etc., and delivered a cashier's check for $30,000 to Martin and $6,000 to his attorney to be held in escrow, pending shipment of the tanks within 15 days, in exchange for a bill of sale to the tnaks; that Martin obtained the funds on the cashier's check, and that the attorney delivered his check for the $6,000 to Smith, payable to Martin and that it was cashed with Martin's endorsement on it; that thereafter he ascertained that there was no estate of Silas McCormick, no storage tanks belonging to any such estate, that the defendant Smith had not purchased any storage building from any such estate, that no John C. Martin could be found and that the name was a ficitious one used in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud plaintiff.

Defendant urges that there is a failure to allege that the plaintiff was fraudulently prevented from making an investigation that would have revealed the true facts and that for this reason the demurrer should have been sustained, citing Martin v. North Ga. Lumber Co., Inc., ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Gibson v. Home Folks Mobile Home Plaza, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • March 10, 1982
    ...unless, before acting upon such a statement, he had exhausted all means at his command to ascertain its truth."); Smith v. Holman, 117 Ga.App. 248, 160 S.E.2d 533 (1968). During the course of these discussions, plaintiff sought verification from Mr. May of several items, most notably the ei......
  • Brown v. Techdata Corp., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • April 5, 1977
    ...Ga.App. 560(2), 208 S.E.2d 571 (1974); Central Chevrolet, Inc. v. Campbell, 129 Ga.App. 30, 198 S.E.2d 362 (1973); Smith v. Holman, 117 Ga.App. 248, 249, 160 S.E.2d 533 (1968); Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga.App. 439, 164 S.E.2d 257 (1968); Anderson v. R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., 10......
  • Gaines v. Wolcott
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 21, 1969
    ...right of recovery is a jury question. If he has not, then the plaintiff, ex aequo et bono, is entitled to recover.' Smith v. Holman, 117 Ga.App. 248, 249, 160 S.E.2d 533, 534, and Although it is not the business of the courts to question the wisdom of the legislature in enacting legislation......
  • Giw Industries, Inc. v. Jerpeg Contracting, Inc., CV 106-127.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • January 10, 2008
    ...of throwing a mantle of protection about people who have engaged in a cheating and swindling operation." Smith v. Holman, 117 Ga.App. 248, 249, 160 S.E.2d 533, 534 (1968). In this context, to the extent GIW personnel noticed deficiencies in JerPeg's work, Quackenbush assured GIW that the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT