This case sounds in tort, usury, accounting and equity, seeking to set aside certain security deeds and to secure a money judgment in addition to punitive damages; yet it fails to allege such fraud as to authorize a rescission, the payment of any sums due or grounds to award the punitive damages, or any of the other relief sought. The allegations are confusing, misleading, diverse and inconsistent. They seem to seek to set out an agreement between the corporate appellant and the corporate appellee for the construction of a motel showing an indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant but they are so indefinite as to the payments made as to fail to set out the basis of the equitable relief sought or to allege a cause of action for any other relief. Castleberry v. Scandrett, 20 Ga. 242; Garrett v. Hitchock, 77 Ga. 427; Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 ( 7 S.E.2d 243); Mims v. Cooper, 203 Ga. 421 ( 46 S.E.2d 909); Rowland v. Rich's Inc., 212 Ga. 640 ( 94 S.E.2d 688); Williams v. Ruben, 216 Ga. 431 ( 117 S.E.2d 456). For the reasons stated the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition as amended. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
In addition, there can be found no allegations of any emergency or condition authorizing the plaintiffs to rely upon the alleged fraudulent representations by Byck. See Morrison v. Colquitt County, 176 Ga. 104 ( 167 S.E. 321); Browning v. Richardson, 181 Ga. 413 ( 182 S.E. 516); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 ( 7 S.E.2d 243). Plaintiffs' brief, which devotes only two sentences and no law to the argument of their fifth count, indicates a lack of confidence in this ground.
In Elliott v. Dolvin, 34 Ga. App. 788 ( 131 S.E. 300), it is held that, where one purchasing real estate has the opportunity, as the plaintiff here did, of examining it before buying, but, instead of doing so, he voluntarily relies upon the statements of the vendor concerning the character and value, the contract will not be rescinded or set aside, or the purchase price of the land abated, because of the falsity of such statements, unless some fraud or artifice was practiced by the vendor to prevent such examination; and that this is true even though the vendee in buying the land may have acted upon the misrepresentations of the vendor or his agents. See also Stone v. Moore, 75 Ga. 565; Grant v. Maxwell, 160 Ga. 612 ( 128 S.E. 803); Brim v. Couch, 184 Ga. 310 ( 191 S.E. 94); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 243). The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers to paragraph 12 of the petition as amended. 2.
" Gibson v. Alford, 161 Ga. 672, 673 (5) ( 132 S.E. 442). See also Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 ( 7 S.E.2d 243). Forfeitures of rights under valid legal contracts are not favored under the law.
The court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. Compare Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596 ( 6 S.E.2d 788); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 243); Livingston v. Barnett, 193 Ga. 640 (4) ( 19 S.E.2d 385). Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
to ascertain the value, and that neither he nor any one in privity with him could plead fraud or mistake in the sale. The instant case differs on its facts from Brannen v. Brannen, 135 Ga. 590 ( a) (69 S.E. 1079), where it was held: "The court committed no error in striking a plea of the defendant, to the effect that the vendor misrepresented to him the character and value of the timber on the land, when, as far as disclosed by the plea, the defendant had sufficient opportunity to inspect the same and was not prevented from so doing by any artifice or fraud of the vendor, but relied upon the latter's representations as to these matters;" and similar cases where the complaining party had sufficient opportunity to inspect, and no agency or confidential relations were involved, as in Thompson v. Boyce, 84 Ga. 497 ( 11 S.E. 353); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (3) ( 41 S.E. 686); Morrison v. Colquitt County, 176 Ga. 104 ( 167 S.E. 321); Browning v. Richardson, 181 Ga. 413 ( 182 S.E. 516); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 712 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 243); Ray v. Isakson, 191 Ga. 610 ( 13 S.E.2d 360). 2.
Any misrepresentation, act, or artifice intended to deceive, and which does deceive another, is such a fraud as may authorize cancellation of a written contract; but, as this court has often held, a party to a contract who can read must read or show a legal excuse for not doing so, and ordinarily, if fraud is the excuse, it must be such fraud as prevents the party from reading. Weaver v. Roberson, 134 Ga. 149 ( 67 S.E. 662); Dover v. Burns, 186 Ga. 19 ( 196 S.E. 785); Lewis v. Foy, 189 Ga. 596 ( 6 S.E.2d 788). The rule will generally apply to the grantee as well as the grantor in a deed of conveyance. Sumner v. Sumner, 121 Ga. 1 (5) ( 48 S.E. 727); Union City Realty Co. v. Wright, 138 Ga. 703 (3) ( 76 S.E. 35); Browning v. Richardson, 181 Ga. 413 ( 182 S.E. 516); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 ( 7 S.E.2d 243). According to some decisions, it seems that the rule may not apply with the same force to contracts of insurance. Whether this is because agreements of this nature are usually quite lengthy and so involved with exceptions and qualifications that it might be thought even a careful reading by a non-expert would not always disclose their full meaning, or because of the manner in which policies of insurance are customarily handled as between the insured and the insurance agent, or whether there may be some other reason, the present case, relating to a plain and unambiguous deed to land, is controlled by the decisions last above cited, and others like them which might be cited in the same connection. For cases involving insurance contracts, see Caverly v. Stovall, 134 Ga. 677 ( 68 S.E. 442); Overland Southern Motor Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 147 Ga. 63 ( 92 S.E. 931); Equitable Building Loan Association v. Brady, 171 Ga. 576 ( 156 S.E. 222); Great American Indemnity Co.
' Gibson v. Alford, 161 Ga. 672, 673 (5) ( 132 S.E. 442). See also Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711 ( 7 S.E.2d 243). "Forfeitures of rights under valid legal contracts are not favored under the law.
Morrison v. Colquitt County, 176 Ga. 104 ( 167 S.E. 321). See also Thompson v. Boyce, 84 Ga. 497 ( 11 S.E. 353); Martin v. Harwell, 115 Ga. 156 (3) ( 41 S.E. 686); Browning v. Richardson, 181 Ga. 413 ( 182 S.E. 516); Karpas v. Candler, 189 Ga. 711, 712 (2) ( 7 S.E.2d 581), where a confidential relation was shown. 3. Mere inadequacy of consideration alone will not void a contract. If the inadequacy be great, it is a strong circumstance to evidence fraud.