Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation

6 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Techdata Corp.

    238 Ga. 622 (Ga. 1977)   Cited 79 times
    Affirming verdict for plaintiff buyer against defendant seller of a business where plaintiff had succeeded in creating jury question on each element of fraud claim

    Questions of fraud, the truth and materiality of representations made by a defendant, and whether the plaintiff could have protected himself by the exercise of proper diligence are, except in plain and indisputable cases, questions for the jury. See, e.g., Braselton Bros. v. Better Maid Dairy Products, 222 Ga. 472 ( 150 S.E.2d 620) (1966); Travel Wholesale, Inc. v. Herren, 132 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., 101 Ga. App. 894 (1) ( 115 S.E.2d 430) (1960); Stovall v. Rumble, 71 Ga. App. 30 (1) ( 29 S.E.2d 804) (1944). The evidence introduced by the buyer at trial made out a jury question on each element of fraud and by its verdict the jury resolved each of those questions in favor of the buyer.

  2. Smith v. Berry

    200 S.E.2d 95 (Ga. 1973)   Cited 4 times

    The record shows that in its pleadings appellee set forth sufficient facts to satisfy the requirements of Code Ann. ยง 81A-109 (b). See Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga. App. 439 ( 164 S.E.2d 257). The question remains whether the trial judge erred in failing to grant a mistrial due to the alleged improper remarks made in counsel for appellee's opening statement concerning appellant's financial motives. Counsel is limited in his opening statement to matters he expects to prove.

  3. Tolar Construction Co. v. GAF Corp.

    154 Ga. App. 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 21 times

    Only by evidence presented to a jury, including perhaps customs of the business and course of dealing between the parties, can these issues be determined. Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga. App. 439 ( 164 S.E.2d 257) (1968). As the question of GAF's fraud is for the jury, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment thereon as to the claim for contribution or indemnity by Diamond and Tolar.

  4. Goldman v. Hart

    134 Ga. App. 422 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 10 times

    2A Moore's Federal Practice 1929-30, ยง 9.03. Where fraud is pleaded as contemplated by CPA sections 8 and 9, the general rules as to construction of pleadings apply, including the rules that the pleading will not be construed against the pleader but will be construed so as to do substantial justice, and that a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless the averments in the complaint disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be proved in support of the claim. Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga. App. 439 ( 164 S.E.2d 257); Elsner v. Cathcart Cartage Co., 124 Ga. App. 615 ( 184 S.E.2d 685); Continental Investment Corp. v. Cherry, 124 Ga. App. 863, 865 (2) ( 186 S.E.2d 301); Vickery v. General Finance Corp., 126 Ga. App. 403, 404 (2) ( 190 S.E.2d 833); Robinson v. A. Construction Co., 130 Ga. App. 56, 57 (2) ( 202 S.E.2d 248). Accord, Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104 ( 210 S.E.2d 13). While the statement made in Mewall Properties Loan Corp. v. Cutten, 233 Ga. 291, 294, that "averments of fraud need not be made with specificity or particularity under the Civil Practice Act" is supportive of this dissent, I nevertheless regard the statement as dictum since fraud was there alleged with particularity, and in any event it is not an altogether accurate statement of the holding in Cochran, supra, which is cited as authority for the statement.

  5. Hendrix v. Scarborough

    131 Ga. App. 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 7 times

    Nor was the defense properly dismissed for absence of other elements. As we wrote in Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga. App. 439 ( 164 S.E.2d 257), "The allegations do not show as a matter of law, as contended by the defendant, a failure by the plaintiff to exercise proper diligence, or that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the alleged deceitful representations as to quality and weight, or that the plaintiff was not fraudulently prevented from ascertaining the true facts. Only by evidence presented to a jury, perhaps including the customs of the business and course of dealing between the parties, can these issues be determined. BraseltonBros. v. Better Maid Dairy Products, 222 Ga. 472 ( 150 S.E.2d 620).

  6. Diversified c. Corp. v. Clayton McLendon

    170 S.E.2d 863 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 12 times

    Such allegations are insufficient to raise a justiciable issue on a defense that the contract sued on is void because of fraud in the inception. For an example of an action between a real estate broker and client in which it was held that the broker's fraudulent activity was sufficiently alleged, see Page v. Comert, 243 F.2d 245. A pleading should not be stricken, however, if under any state of facts within its framework the pleader might prevail ( Neville v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 118 Ga. App. 439 ( 164 S.E.2d 257)) but the trial court should grant a right to amend. Guam Investment Co. v. Central Bldg., Inc., 288 F.2d 19. Nor would the defendant's contention that the damages sought against it are speculative be reason for striking the defense.