Dean v. Belk-Gallant Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dean v. Belk-Gallant Co.

145 S.E.2d 118, 112 Ga. App. 305, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 681

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1965

Docket41446

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E.2d 118 (Dean v. Belk-Gallant 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

Dean v. Belk-Gallant Co., 145 S.E.2d 118, 112 Ga. App. 305, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

This case is controlled by Code § 53-510, the cases of Wright v. Universal Garage Co., 54 Ga. App. 323 (187 SE 718), Mather-Groover Co. v. Roberts, 54 Ga. App. 398 (187 SE 913), and other cases of like nature. Nothing in this record indicates that it was the intention of the parties that Mrs. Dean be bound to the exclusion of her husband when the credit card was issued or when the items were sold and charged to the account in her name. There was no express agreement that she was to be liable, and certainly it was not shown that any such intention was communicated to her at either time. The jury was authorized to find against the husband on the basis of the presumed agency of the wife under the facts shown.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Ebbrhardt, Judge.

This case is controlled by Code § 53-510, the cases of Wright v. Universal Garage Co., 54 Ga. App. 323 (187 SE 718), Mather-Groover Co. v. Roberts, 54 Ga. App. 398 (187 SE 913), and other cases of like nature. Nothing in this record indicates that it was the intention of the parties that Mrs. Dean be bound to the exclusion of her husband when the credit card was issued or when the items were sold and charged to the account in her name. There was no express agreement that she was to be liable, and certainly it was not shown that any such intention was communicated to her at either time. The jury was authorized to find against the husband on the basis of the presumed agency of the wife under the facts shown.

Judgment affirmed.

Nichols, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E.2d 118, 112 Ga. App. 305, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-belk-gallant-co-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack