Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1897–1983 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hamilton v. Englandgreen2 sentences1951As was said in Hamilton v. England, 95 Ga. 693, 698 ( 22 S. E. 697 ): “It is a well-settled and universally recognized rule of law, that no man can profit by his own wrong; and that no man ought to be permitted to profit by a failure upon his own part to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the terms of an agreement to which he was himself a party, is a principle equally well founded both in law and morals.” Judgment affirmed. 1951As was said in Hamilton v. England, 95 Ga. 693, 698 ( 22 S. E. 697 ): “It is a well-settled and universally recognized rule of law, that no man can profit by his own wrong; and that no man ought to be permitted to profit by a failure upon his own part to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the terms of an agreement to which he was himself a party, is a principle equally well founded both in law and morals.” Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 2 |
Finney v. Blalockgreen2 sentences1983If appellant’s refusal to pay appellee’s claim was wrongful, appellant should not be allowed to purchase the mortgage note pursuant to the insurance policy, and then, in the form of interest and attorney’s fees, recover more than what would have been owed the mortgagee had appellant not wrongfully refused to pay appellee’s claim. “ ‘It is a well-settled and universally recognized rule of law, that no man can profit by his own wrong; and that no man ought to be permitted to profit by a failure upon his own part to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the terms of an agreement to which he 1983If appellant’s refusal to pay appellee’s claim was wrongful, appellant should not be allowed to purchase the mortgage note pursuant to the insurance policy, and then, in the form of interest and attorney’s fees, recover more than what would have been owed the mortgagee had appellant not wrongfully refused to pay appellee’s claim. “ ‘It is a well-settled and universally recognized rule of law, that no man can profit by his own wrong; and that no man ought to be permitted to profit by a failure upon his own part to perform the obligations imposed upon him by the terms of an agreement to which he | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
green
1 sentence1981Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218 (93 SC 2041, 36 LE2d 854) (1973). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Epps v. Waring
green
2 sentences1912And Mr. Justice Lumpkin, in the case of Epps v. Waring, 93 Ga. 765 ( 20 S. E. 645 ), declares that “it is a universally recognized doctrine, supported by all respectable text-writers and upheld in every well-considered case bearing upon this subject, that where a party has been induced to enter into a contract by a wilful fraud on the part of the other party, calculated to deceive, and which does deceive,'the defrauded party may set up the fraxxd, in his defense to an action upon the contract.” Under these authorities we think it very clear that the trial judge erred in not allowing the defend 1912And Mr. Justice Lumpkin, in the case of Epps v. Waring, 93 Ga. 765 ( 20 S. E. 645 ), declares that “it is a universally recognized doctrine, supported by all respectable text-writers and upheld in every well-considered case bearing upon this subject, that where a party has been induced to enter into a contract by a wilful fraud on the part of the other party, calculated to deceive, and which does deceive,'the defrauded party may set up the fraxxd, in his defense to an action upon the contract.” Under these authorities we think it very clear that the trial judge erred in not allowing the defend | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Sutton v. McLeod
green
1 sentence1900Sutton v. McLeod, 29 Ga. 589 ; Fletcher v. Perry, 97 Ga. 369 . | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Bailey v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1897“It is a universally recognized doctrine, supported by all respectable text-writers and upheld in every well-considered case bearing upon this subject, that where a party has been induced to enter into a contract by a wilful fraud on the part of the other party, calculated to deceive and which does deceive, the defrauded party may set up the fraud in his defense to an action upon the contract.” Epps v. Waring, 93 Ga. 768. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.