Case ID: ga_60/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bleckley, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sutton vs. Dye.
    Fraud which must have been discovered if usual and reasonable diligence had been exercised, is not a good reply to the statute of limitations. Where, in 1867, a factor sold cotton for his principal, received the proceeds, and, on payment being demanded, answered falsely and fraudulently that he had paid the money over to a third person, but was not then or thereafter called upon to show a receipt, or exhibit his books, or furnish any evidence of the payment except his bare word, and used no trick or artifice to support his statement or stifle inquiry, an action brought for the money, in 1877, by the principal against the factor, was barred ; and the declaration, though setting forth the fraud, and avering its non-discovery until within two years prior to the institution of the suit, was properly dismissed on demurrer.
    Statute of limitations. Fraud. Before Judge Gibson. Richmond Superior Court. October Term, 18 ¡7.
    
    Repoi’t unnecessary.
    Hook & Webb, for plaintiff in error.
    Frank FL. Miller, for defendant.
   Bleckley, Judge.

That the fraud complained of could and ought to have been discovered, long before suit was brought, is plainly apparent. Diligence to detect fraud is as much incumbent upon a party who labors under no disability, as to do any other act in which his interest is involved. He must look about him, and see what villainies environ him. If he has been caught in a net, he must feel for the meshes. . A principal ought to run down his accounts with his factor once in four years. Boobs, papers, everything, ought to be examined, and a final settlement had. He should be wakeful and watchful. Unless he is duly vigilant, the law will not aid him. 56 Ga., 161.

Cited for plaintiff in error: Code, §2931; 8 Ga., 68, 70, 511; 25 Ib., 84; 35 Ib., 40; 41 Ib., 171.

Cited for defendant in error: 4 Ga., 308; 53 Ib., 371; Ib., 573; 59 Ib., 113 ; 50 Ib., 577; 35 Ib., 280; Code, 8 Ib., 511: 25 Ib., 84; 35 Ib., 43; 28 Ib., 38; 24 Ib., 581; 18 Ib., 520; 56 Ib., 161; 19 Ib., 448; 20 Ib., 242; 7 §2918 ; 26 Ga., 443 ; 22 Ib., 129 ; 45 Ib., 456; Code, §2934 ; 34 Ga., 245; 16 Ib., 114; 37 Ib., 319 ; 53 Ib., 364; 55 Ib., 627.

Judgment affirmed.