Brown v. Smith & Kelly Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brown v. Smith & Kelly Co.

76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 214, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 497

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 4, 1913

Docket4036

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 1082 (Brown v. Smith & Kelly 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

Brown v. Smith & Kelly Co., 76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 214, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 497 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

RtTSSEU, J.

Even if, under the allegations of the petition, the relation of master and servant between the parties had not been dissolved by the discharge -of the plaintiff, he could not recover; for, according to the allegations of the petition (and assuming that the relation 'of master and servant still existed), the foreman, in inflicting the injury in question, stepped aside, although temporarily, from the performance of the duties of the master, to engage in a matter wholly different therefrom and beyond the scope of his authority, and the master is not charged with the results of such unauthorized act. Savannah Railway Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga. App. 470 (65 S. E. 322); Lynch v. Florida Central & Peninsular R. Co., 113 Ga. 1105 (39 S. E. 411, 54 L. R. A. 810). Upon this view of the case, the court properly sustained the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Bill, C. J., dissents. Twiggs & Gazan, for plaintiff. O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright, for defendant.

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

RtTSSEU, J.

Even if, under the allegations of the petition, the relation of master and servant between the parties had not been dissolved by the discharge -of the plaintiff, he could not recover; for, according to the allegations of the petition (and assuming that the relation 'of master and servant still existed), the foreman, in inflicting the injury in question, stepped aside, although temporarily, from the performance of the duties of the master, to engage in a matter wholly different therefrom and beyond the scope of his authority, and the master is not charged with the results of such unauthorized act. Savannah Railway Co. v. Hodges, 6 Ga. App. 470 (65 S. E. 322); Lynch v. Florida Central & Peninsular R. Co., 113 Ga. 1105 (39 S. E. 411, 54 L. R. A. 810). Upon this view of the case, the court properly sustained the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Bill, C. J., dissents. Twiggs & Gazan, for plaintiff. O’Byrne, Hartridge & Wright, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 1082, 12 Ga. App. 214, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-smith-kelly-co-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack