Supreme Court of Georgia, 1948

Pantone v. Pantone

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided February 12, 1948 · Atkinson, Bell, Wyatt

46 S.E.2d 498; 203 Ga. 347; 1948 Ga. LEXIS 308 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Lively v. Garnick (Ga. Ct. App. 1981)
Hancock v. Hancock (Ga. 1949)
Dye v. Dye (Ga. 1973)
Lanham v. MR. B'S OIL COMPANY, INC. (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)
Hill v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
Ely v. Stratoflex, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 1974)
United States ex rel. Meva Corp. v. Northeast Construction Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia 1969)
Hinson v. Hinson (Ga. 1965)
Sutton v. McMillan (Ga. 1957)
Bucher v. Murray (Ga. 1956)
Dixon v. Dixon (Ga. 1955)
Pantone v. Pantone (Ga. 1950)
Cowart v. Gay (Ga. 1967)
Fisher v. J. A. Jones Construction Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)

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

Atkinson, Justice.

Where a promise was made by a grantee as an inducement or consideration for the execution of a warranty deed by the grantors, by which promise he agreed to maintain the home place con *348 veyed, keep up repairs, pay taxes, and not get married, but keep it as a home which the grantors could use as they had done during their mother’s lifetime, and where approximately seven years later the grantee married, moved his wife into the home, and claimed it as his individual property, evidence showing a mere failure to comply with his promise was insufficient to establish an inceptive fraudulent intent; and there being no other evidence showing that at the time the agreement was made it was done with intent to defraud, the trial judge did not err in granting a nonsuit. Brinson v. Hester, 185 Ga. 761 (1, 2) (196 S. E. 412).

No. 16105. February 12, 1948. Dykes & Dykes, for plaintiffs. Fort & Fort and Benjamin F. Neal, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bell, J., absent on account of illness, and Wyatt, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.