Brooke v. Cartersville Chero-Cola Bottling Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brooke v. Cartersville Chero-Cola Bottling Co.

99 S.E. 150, 23 Ga. App. 671, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 280

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 23, 1919

Docket9926

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 150 (Brooke v. Cartersville Chero-Cola Bottling Co.) 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

Brooke v. Cartersville Chero-Cola Bottling Co., 99 S.E. 150, 23 Ga. App. 671, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

Tills was a suit against a corporation for the recovery of commissions, based upon an alleged oral agreement, by the terms of which the general manager of the corporation agreed to pay the plain[672]*672tiff, as a real-estate broker, for his services in selling its entire plant. The evidence adduced on the trial failed to show that the manager had ever been authorized by the corporation to make a .sale of its stock or of its entire physical property, or that the corporation subsequently ratified the unauthorized act of its manager in agreeing to pay plaintiff for effecting the sale of the property. Ware v. Atlanta Coffee Mills Co., 16 Ga. App. 749, 750 (86 S. E. 47); Nunez Gin & Warehouse. Co. v. Moore, 10 Ga. App. 350 (73 S. E. 432) ; Swindell v. Bainbridge State Bank, 3 Ga. App. 304, 370, 371 (60 S. E. 13) ; Trust Co. of Georgia v. Wallace, 143 Ga. 214 (3) (84 S. E. 538); Ludden & Bates Music House v. McDonald, 117 Ga. 60 (43 S. E. 425). The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the trial judge did not err in directing such a verdict.

Decided April 23, 1919. Reheabing Denied May 13, 1919.

Complaint; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. May-25, 1918.

Napier & Maynard, R. L. Berner, for plaintiff. Hall & Grice, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

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

Wade, C. J.

Tills was a suit against a corporation for the recovery of commissions, based upon an alleged oral agreement, by the terms of which the general manager of the corporation agreed to pay the plain[672]*672tiff, as a real-estate broker, for his services in selling its entire plant. The evidence adduced on the trial failed to show that the manager had ever been authorized by the corporation to make a .sale of its stock or of its entire physical property, or that the corporation subsequently ratified the unauthorized act of its manager in agreeing to pay plaintiff for effecting the sale of the property. Ware v. Atlanta Coffee Mills Co., 16 Ga. App. 749, 750 (86 S. E. 47); Nunez Gin & Warehouse. Co. v. Moore, 10 Ga. App. 350 (73 S. E. 432) ; Swindell v. Bainbridge State Bank, 3 Ga. App. 304, 370, 371 (60 S. E. 13) ; Trust Co. of Georgia v. Wallace, 143 Ga. 214 (3) (84 S. E. 538); Ludden & Bates Music House v. McDonald, 117 Ga. 60 (43 S. E. 425). The evidence demanded a verdict in favor of the defendant, and the trial judge did not err in directing such a verdict.

Decided April 23, 1919. Reheabing Denied May 13, 1919.

Complaint; from Bibb superior court—Judge Mathews. May-25, 1918.

Napier & Maynard, R. L. Berner, for plaintiff. Hall & Grice, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 150, 23 Ga. App. 671, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooke-v-cartersville-chero-cola-bottling-co-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack