No. 12850 | Ga. | Sep 14, 1939
1. While an absolute deed of conveyance will not, at the instance of the grantor, be canceled merely because of a breach by the grantee of a promise made by him, in consideration of which the deed was executed (Brand v. Power, 110 Ga. 522, 36 S.E. 53" court="Ga." date_filed="1900-04-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/brand-v-power-5569918?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5569918">36 S. E. 53; Christian v. Ross, 145 Ga. 284, 88 S.E. 986" court="Ga." date_filed="1916-05-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bates-v-weaver-5580984?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5580984">88 S. E. 986; Moore v. Turner, 146 Ga. 197 (3), 91 S.E. 13" court="Ga." date_filed="1916-11-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-turner-5581401?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5581401">91 S. E. 13), and the remedy of the grantor in such a case is a suit for damages for such breach (Brand v. Power, supra), yet where, as in the instant ease, it is alleged that the grantee is insolvent, and
2. Inferences not warranted by evidence should not be indulged in by counsel in their arguments to the jury (Code, § 81-1009; Gray v. Cole, 20 Ga. 203; Georgia Power Co. v. Puckett, 181 Ga. 386, 182 S.E. 384" court="Ga." date_filed="1935-10-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/georgia-power-co-v-puckett-5590599?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5590599">182 S. E. 384); but we can not say that the judge abused his discretion in denying a motion to declare a mistrial because counsel for the plaintiff in his argument to the jury stated that the defendant was “educated in the underworld,” where there was evidence that she was a woman of lewd character, who by false representations as to her age and character induced the plaintiff, an elderly man, to become her guardian and to spend large sums of money upon her and to convey valuable property to her. The special ground of the motion for a new trial is without merit.
3. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.