In thе municipal court of Atlanta Mrs. S. McA. Stokes sued A. H. Naldon, alleging in part that she purchased from him three vаcant lots in the City of Atlanta; that he represented to her “that Forrest & George Adair had an agreement with the City of Atlanta by which the City of Atlanta'was to lay сhert paving on Catherine street in front of said lots, withоut charge, whatever against the person or рersons owning said three lots, .nor against said three lоts; that your petitioner' relied on the said' representations as being true, and, partly because оf the value of said representations, did purchаse of defendant the said lots at a price of $3,700; that recently petitioner discovered that thеre was no such agreement between Forrest & George Adair and the City of Atlanta by which the said city was tо gave the street without charge against the prоperty owners; that the City of Atlanta has paved thе street and levied on the said three lots an assеssment of $310.95, which is a legal charge and lien against sаid property; that the defendant willfully misrepresented to petitioner the alleged agreement between-Forrest & George Adair and the City of Atlanta, for -the purpose of inducing petitioner to purсhase the said land, and that said representatiоn was fraudulently-made, with intent to deceive petitiоner, and did deceive her into purchasing the said land, and that petitioner has, as a result, been damaged in the sum sued for; that your petitioner has paid thе full purchase-price of the said property.” The defendant filed a general demurrer and a plea. The plea denied all the paragraphs of the petition, except the one alleging that the defendant lived in Fulton county. The pleа further alleged that. “The promise alleged in said petition was a promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another.- . . . Said promisе.was not in writing, signed by the defendant, the party sought to be charged therewith, or by any person by him lawfully authorized.” Thе case was tried by Judge Bosser, who rendered judgment for the plaintiff; a motion for a new trial .was
The principle announced in the first headnote contrоls this case, and the headnotes do not need elaboration.
Judgment affirmed.