Baldwin v. Garrett & Sons

36 S.E. 966, 111 Ga. 876, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 875
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 9, 1900·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Little, J.

1. It is the right of one who deals with an agent, who fails to disclose his principal, to proceed directly against the principal when discovered. Civil Code, §8020. This right is not dependent on the diligence of the plaintiff in discovering the fact of the concealed agency.

2. An agent to conduct a given business for his principal necessarily has authority to do everything which is essential to the performance of his duties as agent. If the agency be to carry on a mercantile business, and to do this if is necessary to rent a house, the principal will be bound for the rent thereof, whether he expressly authorized the agent to make the contract of rent or not.

3. Two of the charges complained of in the present case being in conflict with the law as above stated, and the same having relation to vital issues in the case, there should be a new trial, the record not disclosing that ' the verdict complained of was demanded by the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Baldwin v. Garrett & Sons, 36 S.E. 966, 111 Ga. 876, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 875 (Ga. 1900).

36 S.E. 966 (Baldwin v. Garrett & Sons) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carmichael v. Silvers
90 Ga. App. 804 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Barrington v. Davis Jenkins & Sons
162 S.E. 642 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Beacham v. Coe-Mortimer Co.
118 S.E. 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Farmers Ginnery & Manufacturing Co. v. Thrasher
87 S.E. 804 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1916)
Lenney v. Finley
45 S.E. 593 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)