¶1That Burton perpetrated a gross fraud upon Cade cannot be doubted in this case. Still, Tate is protected, and the only question is, when the suit should have been commenced by Cade against Burton. We think, by analogy, that the period of limitations applicable for the fraud is the same as that which would apply to an action for the land, to-wit: seven years from the discovery of the fraud; which was when Tate commenced clearing the land in dispute in the winter of 1856-57. Consequently, the judgment below, is reversed.
35 Ga. 280
Cade v. Burton
Decided December 15, 1866
Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1866-12-15
Equity. Elbert County Superior Court. Decided by Judge Wm. M. Reese. September Term, 1866. The controversy in this case was about a strip of land claimed by the proprietors of two contiguous tracts, known as the Burton and the Ragland tracts. Eor many years prior to 18J7, the former was owned by the defendant Burton, and the latter by John D. Watkins. In that year, Burton conveyed the former tract to Cade, the plaintiff, by deed, with the usual warranty.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“We think, by analogy, that the period of limitations applicable for the fraud is the same as that which would apply to an action for the land, to wit: seven years from the discovery of the fraud; ...”
quoted by 1 later decision, including Broadfoot v. Hunerwadel (In Re Dulock)
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1866-12-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2002
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →