TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bryant v. Bryant

Bryant v. Bryant, 223 S.E.2d 662 (Ga. 1976)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 11, 1976
Docket
No. 30645
Judges
Hall
Citations
223 S.E.2d 662236 Ga. 2651976 Ga. LEXIS 836

Opinion — Hall

Hall, Justice.

The determinative point in this suit by an administrator to cancel certain deeds by deceased alleged to have been procured by fraud, is that the trial court committed error by dismissing the complaint for failure to *266 state a claim on the ground that the fraud had not been pleaded with the particularity required by Code Ann. § 81A-109(b).

Submitted December 29, 1975 Decided February 11, 1976.

Eugene F. Edge, for appellant.

Kenneth C. Fuller, for appellee.

This point is controlled by Cochran v. McCollum, 233 Ga. 104 ( 210 SE2d 13 ) (1974) in which we ruled (p. 105) that the principle that "a pleading should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief,” applied to all pleadings including special matters such as fraud.

The pertinent allegations of the complaint were as follows: "Under threats of violence and undue influence over a period of years, Mrs. Lillie P. Bryant purported to convey all of her property to said defendant, . . . The property to which plaintiff claims title as administrator had a reasonable market value of $20,000.00 at the time of said conveyances to the defendant, and as evidenced by the consideration in the deeds marked Exhibits 'C’ and 'D,’ and is [sic] a great inadequacy of consideration, and a great disparity of mental ability in relation to the executions of these deeds.”

These allegations are sufficient to meet the test of Cochran v. McCollum, supra, and the complaint was erroneously dismissed; the "... proper remedy for seeking more particularity is by motion for a more definite statement (Code Ann. § 81A-112 (e)) at the pleading stage or by the rules of discovery thereafter.”

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1977: 21978: 21979: 11980: 11989: 12003: 119772026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McDonough Construction Co. v. McLendon Electric Co.250 S.E.2d 424 (Ga. 1978)
  2. Canal Insurance Co. v. Cambron242 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. 1978)
  3. Goldston v. Bank of America Corp.577 S.E.2d 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)
  4. Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc.237 S.E.2d 223 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)
  5. Gambrell v. Gambrell272 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. 1980)
  6. Moultrie v. Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n252 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Goldston v. Bank of America Corp.577 S.E.2d 864 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003)
  2. Torok v. Yost389 S.E.2d 793 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. Gambrell v. Gambrell272 S.E.2d 70 (Ga. 1980)
  4. Moultrie v. Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n252 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
  5. McDonough Construction Co. v. McLendon Electric Co.250 S.E.2d 424 (Ga. 1978)
  6. Canal Insurance Co. v. Cambron242 S.E.2d 32 (Ga. 1978)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Cochran v. McCollum, 210 S.E.2d 13 (Ga. 1974) 72

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list