Brim v. Couch
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Cawthon Motor Co. v. Scheufler (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
- United States ex rel. Meva Corp. v. Northeast Construction Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 1969)
- Lariscy v. Hill (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
- Braselton Brothers, Inc. v. Better Maid Dairy Products, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
- NEWMAN MANUFACTURING CO. v. Young (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)
- Daugert v. Holland Furnace Company (Ga. Ct. App. 1963)
- Doanes v. Nalley Chevrolet, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1962)
- Rush v. Autry (Ga. 1954)
- Love v. Nixon (Ga. Ct. App. 1950)
- Cosby v. Asher (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
W. A. Brim brought a petition against W. D. Couch and against Cojack Company, a corporation by whom Couch was employed, and prayed for a judgment for $91,544.I<T damages, and that certain papers executed by him as evidences of indebtedness and of sale be canceled. He also prayed that the defendants be enjoined from proceeding in any action on said evidences of indebtedness to recover against him, and be restrained from annoying or harassing him with litigation of any kind. The petition was dismissed on general demurrer, and the exception is to that judgment.
1. The petition alleges that the defendant Couch falsely and fraudulently misrepresented the advantages to accrue to the plaintiff by becoming a member of the “Horn Ond Stores System,” and thereby induced him to become a member of that organization, invest his money therein, and execute certain notes and bills of sale to secure debt. But the allegations on this point fail to show that there was any reason why the plaintiff should have been defrauded. It is alleged that the plaintiff had for several years been in the employment of Rogers Stores, a similar grocery-business, and had fine chances for continued promotion. In the exercise of ordinary prudence the plaintiff should have examined the conditions of the proposition coming from an entire stranger with whom he was dealing at arm’s length.
2. It plainly appears from the allegations of the petition that the execution of the power of attorney, the bills of sale, and the
3. The court did not err in dismissing the petition on general demurrer. Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.