138 S.E.2d 368 (Ga. 1964), 22630, Williams v. Sullivan

Citation: 138 S.E.2d 368, 220 Ga. 267

Opinion Judge: ALMAND, Justice.

Party Name: Mary Edward WILLIAMS v. Francis E. SULLIVAN.

Attorney: An oral promise by a grantee to perform an act in the future, though it be made as an inducement or consideration for the execution of the deed by the grantor, does not constitute fraud, so as to authorize the concellation of the deed, unless the promise was made with the present intention on the...

Case Date: September 28, 1964

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Linked as:

Document options

Printable page
Email this

Extract

138 S.E.2d 368 (Ga. 1964), 22630, Williams v. Sullivan

No longer available (Autolink)

See the full content of this document

This document cites

Georgia - 196 S.E. 412 (Ga. 1938), 12030, Brinson v. Hester
Georgia - 36 S.E. 53 (Ga. 1900), Brand v. Power
Georgia - 138 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. 1964), 22634, Dodson v. Grimes
Georgia - 56 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. 1949), 16784, Cordell v. Cordell
Georgia - 82 S.E.2d 700 (Ga. 1954), 18627, Prosser v. Brooks