Barber v. Shader

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Barber v. Shader

27 S.E.2d 108, 70 Ga. App. 3, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 213

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 29, 1943

Docket30109.

StatusPublished

This text of 27 S.E.2d 108 (Barber v. Shader) 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

Barber v. Shader, 27 S.E.2d 108, 70 Ga. App. 3, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 213 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

We think that the petition in the instant ease, in effect, alleges that the labor and articles set forth in the account sued for were purchased, or, in the language of the plaintiff’s petition, were “solicited and authorized to be furnished” by E. M. Jones to be used in the joint business or adventure in question of E. M. Jones and Leo T. Barber; and that the authority of E. M. Jones to purchase these articles for himself and Barber arose, under the allegations of the petition, from the fact ubat Jones and Barber were engaged in the joint business or adventure in question, and that they were partners. Under this construction of the plaintiff’s petition, the instant case is controlled by Barber v. Smith, 69 Ga. App. 624 (26 S. E. 2d, 478). Eollowing the ruling in that case, the court below did not err in overruling Barber’s general demurrer to the petition, but did err in dismissing his plea of no partnership for want of prosecution.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

We think that the petition in the instant ease, in effect, alleges that the labor and articles set forth in the account sued for were purchased, or, in the language of the plaintiff’s petition, were “solicited and authorized to be furnished” by E. M. Jones to be used in the joint business or adventure in question of E. M. Jones and Leo T. Barber; and that the authority of E. M. Jones to purchase these articles for himself and Barber arose, under the allegations of the petition, from the fact ubat Jones and Barber were engaged in the joint business or adventure in question, and that they were partners. Under this construction of the plaintiff’s petition, the instant case is controlled by Barber v. Smith, 69 Ga. App. 624 (26 S. E. 2d, 478). Eollowing the ruling in that case, the court below did not err in overruling Barber’s general demurrer to the petition, but did err in dismissing his plea of no partnership for want of prosecution.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Gardner, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 S.E.2d 108, 70 Ga. App. 3, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 213, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-shader-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack