From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Georgia Motor Supply Company, Inc. v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 6, 1962
124 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)

Opinion

39255.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1962.

Fraud and deceit. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Wright.

Frank A. Bowers, John L. Respess, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Franklin B. Anderson, contra.


The evidence being insufficient to sustain the cause of action set out in the petition, the verdict for the plaintiff was unauthorized; and the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 6, 1962.


This was a suit to recover damages based on fraud and deceit alleged to have been committed by the defendant corporation in failing to make certain specific repairs to plaintiff's automobile as contracted, and in charging plaintiff for such repairs after representing that they had been made. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $276.83 actual damages, $893.17 punitive damages and $250 attorney's fees. The judgment under review is the order of the trial court denying the defendant's amended motion for new trial.


Under the allegations of the amended petition, the right of the plaintiff to recover was based on four propositions: (1) that the defendant contracted to make certain enumerated repairs (including the replacing of specific parts) on the plaintiff's automobile; (2) that to induce the payment of the charges of said repairs and parts replacement, the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiff that the automobile had been repaired as agreed; (3) that relying on these representations, the plaintiff borrowed money from a named finance company at the suggestion of the defendant's agent and paid for the alleged repairs to his automobile; and (4) that the representations were false, such falsity being known to the defendant, who deceived the plaintiff in the transaction.

These allegations made the action one to recover damages in tort for fraud and deceit, and to recover, it was necessary for the plaintiff not only to make said allegations but to prove them. Wooten v. Calahan, 32 Ga. 382; Brooke v. Cole, 108 Ga. 251 ( 33 S.E. 849); Code § 105-302.

The proof relied upon by the plaintiff to sustain these essential allegations, however, showed nothing more than an oral agreement between the parties, whereby the defendant corporation through its agent, contracted to repair "a busted piston" in the plaintiff's 1953 Cadillac automobile; a representation by the defendant's agent that the repairs had been made; payment of the repair charges; and the unsatisfactory performance of said vehicle after said repairs had allegedly been made. Assuming that the evidence was sufficient to show payment in reliance on the defendant's representation that the automobile had been repaired as contracted, there was no evidence as to the alleged falsity of the defendant's representation except the testimony of the plaintiff in regard to the operational condition of his automobile after it was returned to him by the defendant; and such testimony was wholly insufficient to affirmatively show that the specific repairs agreed upon had not been made. Moreover, there was undisputed evidence that on several occasions when the plaintiff returned the car, the defendant made repairs in addition to those allegedly agreed upon and continued to make efforts to get the vehicle in a condition satisfactory to the plaintiff. This undisputed evidence was directly opposite to the allegations in the petition that the defendant had made no repairs to the car.

Accordingly, since this was an action based on fraud and deceit rather than breach of warranty, the evidence adduced on the trial failed to sustain the cause of action set out in the petition, and the verdict for the plaintiff was unauthorized. The trial court therefore erred in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds.

The special grounds in the motion for new trial were neither argued nor insisted upon and will be treated as abandoned. Lightfoot v. Southeastern Liquid Fertilizer Co., Inc., 102 Ga. App. 512 (2) ( 116 S.E.2d 651).

Judgment reversed. Nichols, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.


Summaries of

Georgia Motor Supply Company, Inc. v. Bailey

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 6, 1962
124 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)
Case details for

Georgia Motor Supply Company, Inc. v. Bailey

Case Details

Full title:GEORGIA MOTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. v. BAILEY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 6, 1962

Citations

124 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)
124 S.E.2d 298

Citing Cases

Westberry v. Radford

Roberts v. State, 88 Ga. App. 767 (1b) ( 77 S.E.2d 825); Mutual Benefit Health c. Assn. v. Hickman, 100 Ga.…

Rothberg v. Charles H. Hardin c. Co.

The remaining assignments of error are considered abandoned. A. F. King Son v. Simmons, 107 Ga. App. 628 (…