Bagley v. Clement

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bagley v. Clement

133 S.E. 648, 35 Ga. App. 508, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 959

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 15, 1926

Docket16953

StatusPublished

This text of 133 S.E. 648 (Bagley v. Clement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bagley v. Clement, 133 S.E. 648, 35 Ga. App. 508, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 959 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. There being no evidence that the defendant knew that the overseer, his alleged agent, had acted for him in purchasing- the property, a charge of the court that if the defendant knew that the alleged agent had purchased the property for the defendant and that the defendant kept the property afterwards and used it, this would amount to a ratification, was not adjusted to tlie evidence; and since the evidence authorized the inference that no agency for the purchase of the property existed, this charge was prejudicial to the defendant, and was error.

2. The court erred also in not submitting to the jury the contention of the [509]*509defendant, which was authorized by the defendant’s testimony, that the property remained upon the defendant’s farm by virtue of a sale to the overseer himself, and not to the overseer as agent for the defendant.

Decided June 15, 1926. Mclllreath & Scott, for plaintiff in error. D. K. Johnston, contra.

3. It being a contention of the defendant that no agency whatsoever existed in the overseer for the purchase of the property, a failure of the court to clearly submit this issue to the jury was error.

4. In view of the above rulings, it is unnecessary to pass upon any* of the other assignments of error.

5. The judge of the superior court erred in not sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stephens, J.

1. There being no evidence that the defendant knew that the overseer, his alleged agent, had acted for him in purchasing- the property, a charge of the court that if the defendant knew that the alleged agent had purchased the property for the defendant and that the defendant kept the property afterwards and used it, this would amount to a ratification, was not adjusted to tlie evidence; and since the evidence authorized the inference that no agency for the purchase of the property existed, this charge was prejudicial to the defendant, and was error.

2. The court erred also in not submitting to the jury the contention of the [509]*509defendant, which was authorized by the defendant’s testimony, that the property remained upon the defendant’s farm by virtue of a sale to the overseer himself, and not to the overseer as agent for the defendant.

Decided June 15, 1926. Mclllreath & Scott, for plaintiff in error. D. K. Johnston, contra.

3. It being a contention of the defendant that no agency whatsoever existed in the overseer for the purchase of the property, a failure of the court to clearly submit this issue to the jury was error.

4. In view of the above rulings, it is unnecessary to pass upon any* of the other assignments of error.

5. The judge of the superior court erred in not sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 S.E. 648, 35 Ga. App. 508, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagley-v-clement-gactapp-1926.