dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
1. The majority correctly states that the terms of OCGA § 18-2-*68022 refer only to a fraudulent transferor, and provide no express remedy against a transferee. That, however, cannot settle the issue of a fraudulent transferee’s liability to one injured by the fraud.
2. The following statutes are applicable to the issues in this case:
(a) OCGA § 18-2-22 declares the following acts to be fraudulent as against creditors: “Every conveyance of real . . . estate . . . made with intention to delay or defraud creditors, where such intention is known to the taking party. . . .”
(b) OCGA § 51-1-1 provides in part: “A tort is the unlawful violation of a legal right other than a mere breach of contract, express or implied.”
(c) OCGA § 51-1-6 provides: “When the law requires a person to perform an act for the benefit of another or to refrain from doing an act which may injure another, although no cause of action is given in express terms, the injured party may recover for the breach of such legal duty if he suffers damage thereby.”
(d) OCGA § 51-1-8 provides: “Private duties may arise from statute or from relations created by contract, express or implied. The violation of a private duty, accompanied by damage, shall give a right of action.”
(e) OCGA § 51-6-1 provides: “Fraud, accompanied by damage to the party defrauded, always gives a right of action to the injured party.”
3. “To show conspiracy it is not necessary to prove an express compact or agreement among the parties thereto. The essential element of the charge is the common design; but it need not appear that the parties met together either formally or informally and entered into any explicit or formal agreement; nor is it essential that it should appear that either by words or writing they formulated their unlawful objects. It is sufficient that two or more persons in any manner either positively or tacitly come to a mutual understanding that they will accomplish the unlawful design.” Cook v. Robinson, 216 Ga. 328, 330 (116 SE2d 742) (1960).
“A conspiracy is defined as ‘the combination of two or more persons to do: (a) something that is unlawful, oppressive, or immoral; or (b) something not unlawful, oppressive, or immoral, by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means; or (c) something that is unlawful, oppressive or immoral, by unlawful, oppressive, or immoral means.’ [Cits.] The conspiracy is not the gravamen of the charge, but may be both pleaded and proved as aggravating the wrong complained of and enabling the petitioner to recover in one action against all as joint tortfeasors. [Cits.]” Groover v. Brandon, 200 Ga. 153, 164 (36 SE2d 84) (1945).
4. From the evidence in this case a jury could have found that the Kesler brothers conspired to defraud the children of Jan Veal Evans, *681and in furtherance of this conspiracy, Jimmy Kesler fraudulently deeded real property which he owned to H. V. Kesler, who, in turn, recorded or had recorded the deeds.
Decided November 24, 1987 Reconsideration denied December 16, 1987. Cathey & Strain, Edward E. Strain III, Andrew J. Hill, Jr., for appellants. A. Jack Kemp, for appellees.5. Given the state of the evidence, it requires no new precept to require one who is particeps fraudis to answer in damages to another who is directly and proximately damaged by such fraud.
“Where the case is new in principle, the courts have no authority to give a remedy, no matter how great the grievance; but where the case is only new in instance, and the sole question is upon the application of a recognized principle to a new case, ‘it will be just as competent to courts of justice to apply the principle to any case that may arise two centuries hence as it was two centuries ago.’ Broom’s Legal Maxims (8th ed.), 193. This results from the application of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, which finds expression in our code, where it is declared that ‘For every right there shall be a remedy, and every court having jurisdiction of the one may, if necessary, frame the other.’ Civil Code, § 4929.”1 Pavesich v. New Eng. Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 193-4 (50 SE 68) (1904).
It is interesting, and gratifying, to note that the Georgia statute quoted by Justice Cobb has been a part of our statutory law since 1863. Orig. Code 1863, § 3176.