Neither its conclusions from nor the re-statement of the facts already pleaded, separately or conjunctively, constitutes a change in the cause of action. Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219, 222 (2) ( 63 S.E.2d 408). If we should dismiss this appeal, since the amendment is immaterial the trial judge would not be required to make any further adjudication or enter any further order.

Allegations stating the knowledge and intention of the opposite party usually constitute allegations of fact rather than conclusions, even as against a special demurrer. Stewart Oil Co. v. Bryant, 93 Ga. App. 191 ( 91 S.E.2d 48); Georgia N. R. Co. v. Hathcock, 93 Ga. App. 72 ( 91 S.E.2d 145); Georgia Power Co. v. Blum, 80 Ga. App. 618 (3a) ( 57 S.E.2d 18); Warner Bros. Pictures v. Stanley, 56 Ga. App. 85 (6) ( 192 S.E. 300); Nelson v. Estill, 190 Ga. 235 (3) ( 9 S.E.2d 73); Jackson v. Co-op Cab Co., 102 Ga. App. 688 ( 117 S.E.2d 627); Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219 ( 63 S.E.2d 408; Dodd v. Slater, 101 Ga. App. 362 ( 114 S.E.2d 170). Clear proof that employees of the defendant corporation, knowing the plaintiff had not committed a theft, informed the plaintiff they had instructions from the home office to put her in jail if the alleged shortage were not made up and "that they were going to immediately call the police and have her locked up unless she paid them the money right now" demonstrates wilful and tortious misconduct for which an action will lie. This does not mean that an employer has no right to investigate a shortage or even, in a proper case, to point out the likely results of misconduct on the part of the employee, but knowledge that the accusation is untrue coupled with a threat of immediate harm if money is not paid over is no less than an attempt to extort money by threat of violence and is as much an invasion of a private right of the individual as any other right, such as the right of privacy. Nor is the petition defective in fai

" Jackson v. Brown, 209 Ga. 78, 80 (2) ( 70 S.E.2d 756); Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 306 ( 104 S.E.2d 427); S. S. Builders v. Equitable Investment Corp., 219 Ga. 557, 564 (4) ( 134 S.E.2d 777); Rogers v. Sinclair Refining Co., 49 Ga. App. 72, 74 ( 174 S.E. 207); Monroe v. Goldberg, 80 Ga. App. 770, 775 ( 57 S.E.2d 448). On the other hand, "When a promise is made with no intention of performance, and for the very purpose of accomplishing a fraud, it is a most apt and effectual means to that end, and the victim has a remedy by action or defense." Floyd v. Morgan, 62 Ga. App. 711, 715 (5) ( 9 S.E.2d 717); Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219, 223 (3) ( 63 S.E.2d 408); Hill v. Stewart, 93 Ga. App. 792, 796 ( 92 S.E.2d 829). See Coral Gables Corp. v. Hamilton, 168 Ga. 182, 194-199 ( 147 S.E. 494). Cf. Thomson v. McLaughlin, 13 Ga. App. 334, 337 ( 79 S.E. 182).

To do so would render the defense of fraud in the inducement a practical nullity, since the fraud usually pertains to the transaction underlying the note rather than the note itself. See, e.g., Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219, 63 S.E.2d 408 (1951). We cannot agree with the FDIC's analysis of this issue, although several recent Fifth Circuit cases have involved the protection of § 1823(e), and in all the FDIC has prevailed.

This is the third appearance of this case in this court. See 83 Ga. App. 219; 87 Ga. App. 261. QUILLIAN, J.

This is the second appeal of this case. For the pleadings and rulings thereon see Johnston v. Dollar, 83 Ga. App. 219 ( 63 S.E.2d, 408). This action is upon a check for $3000, executed by J. G. Johnston and delivered to Mrs. Mary Dollar, upon which payment was stopped. Johnston's defense, in brief, was that his wife had left him and agreed to return to him if he would quit drinking and purchase a house in Polk County from Mrs. Dollar, sister of the defendant's wife, and have the deed made to her, Mrs. Johnston; that such an agreement was made and fully performed by him; but that his wife made the agreement with the intention not to perform, and Mrs. Dollar conspired with his wife to obtain the house for Mrs. Johnston, knowing that Mrs. Johnston did not intend to return to him and live with him as his wife.