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

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 4, 1913·No. 4036·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

Pincite

76 S.E. 1082 (Brown v. Smith & Kelly Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related