#### Morris *v.*Morris.

XiUMFKisr, J. — This being an action of deceit, and there having been no misrepresentations on the part of the defendant to induce the plaintiff to enter into the contract in question, and no misplaced confidence upon the part of the plaintiff; and it appearing that, although the parties were brothers, they dealt each with the other at arms’ length, acting each upon his own j udgment; and the transaction being otherwise free from fraud, there was no error in granting a nonsuit.

November 26, 1894.

Action of deceit. Before Judge Van Epps. City •court of Atlanta. March term, 1894.

Plaintiff' and defendant were legatees, and defendant was one of the executors, of the estate of their father, who died in May, 1881, leaving various parcels •of realty, among them a lot on Broad street in Atlanta. Plaintiff was about forty years old in 1890; defendant about ten years older. Numerous trades, exchanges, etc., had taken place between them and the other legatees, involving the property of the estate. In all these matters plaintiff' dealt on his own judgment. In September, 1890, defendant went to Douglasville where plaintiff was then residing, and opened negotiations with him looking to an exchange of his interest in the Atlanta property for a body of farm land in Douglas county. They had previously had three or four conversations regarding the *536matter, going back over a period of about a year. Defendant offered to give the Douglas land for plaintiff’s-interest in the Atlanta property with $500 boot, and stated that the Atlanta property was assessed at $12,000' by competent men. Plaintiff declined this, and stated he thought the property was worth $16,000. Defendant then offered to swap for a horse to boot; which plaintiff declined. They finally agreed on an even exchange, estimating the Atlanta property as worth $16,~ 000; and gave deeds to each other that evening. A few days afterwards, defendant sold to one Ryan his interest in the Atlanta property, including that he had acquired in the exchange, at a price based on a valuation several thousand dollars greater than $16,000. A good while-before, Ryan had told defendant that whenever the property was for sale, he would like to buy it. Plaintiff ascertained that the property had been sold to Ryan, about a year afterwai’ds; and on refusal by defendant to-divide profits or take back the Douglas land, brought this suit for damages. lie alleged, that at the time of the exchange he knew nothing of the value of the Atlanta property; that defendant, by reason of his business qualifications and being a resident of Atlanta, had had the management of it; that he told the plaintiff the property was only given in at $12,000, and falsely represented that the price he put on it was its full market-value; that plaintiff had all confidence in his brother,, and no reason to doubt his statement as to said value!that at the time of the trade defendant had bargained the-property to Ryan for the larger price he afterwards received, and his purpose was to buy up plaintiff’s interest as cheaply as possible and thereby defraud him out of" several thousand dollars, and in this way he did deceive and defraud him out of the sum representing the difference between the amount at which his interest in the pi’operty was valued, and the sum at which it was sold.. *537Plaintiff testified: I knew nothing of the market value of the Atlanta property in 1890, except what my brother told me. I came to Atlanta from three to six times a year. I had never asked any one what it was worth. What induced me to make the trade was, I thought I was getting the full value of the property, and the Douglasville land was worth fully as much. I thought I knew what that land was worth. I had other land in three or four miles of it, and thought my brother was telling me what the Atlanta property was worth. He did not tell me anything about any negotiations pending with any one else as to this property. It is true I knew all about this property in Atlanta, and had measured the frontage of it before the trade was made, and found it to be 27 feet. I knew about the Seltzer property that brought $1,200 a front foot.' Defendant did not lead me to believe the property in question was worth $16,-000; that was my own estimate. He said he thought, it was assessed at its value. I did not know whether that was true; I thought it was not. I reached the value of it from my own judgment. I did business in that Ryan house once; was there about a year; knew it well; was acquainted with many people in Atlanta; knew some real estate men; had every avenue to ascertain the opinion of anybody.as to the value of that property. It is true that, about two or three months after the trade, I bragged about it, and stated that I was perfectly satisfied and would not begin to swap back with him. I knew he was trading for himself and not as-executor.- I do not know of any fact connected with the estate that he concealed from me. I lived in Atlanta from -1869 about eight years. Hp to the time of this trade we had sold and disposed of all the property of the-estate, except this and one other piece, and dealt with each other, each taking care of himself. I was trying to-make the best trade I could. About three months before *538we traded, I told him I would give him my interest in the Atlanta property for his land in Douglas; etc.

*535
      *Judgment affirmed,.*

*538E. J. Jordan, for plaintiff J. A. Anderson and Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, for defendant.