East Rome Town Co. v. Brower
This text of 7 S.E. 273 (East Rome Town Co. v. Brower) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The object of the bill in- this case was to' correct a deed. There was evidence tending to'show that in the contract made between the parties, there was a reservation' absolute and unqualified as to a certain part of the premises, Whereas the'deed- qualified-in a material- respect'that reservation; The court, in charging- the' jury and dealing with the case throughout the trial, seemed to consider that the highest evidence of the contract was-the deed-itself, and-the'bond for titles in-pursuance of which the deed was made. But the evidence prbves conclusively that it was the understanding of both- parties that the contract should be and was' made directly with the corporation, whereas the bond for titles and the deed were- simply the acts of officers of the'corporation.- The corporation records-manifested the contract as the complainant contended that' it was; and if these records- were prbperly made, they were, in this litigation,, the highest and best- evidence of what it was. If they were improperly made, or did not speak-the truth, they would be reduced from this superior rank. The court,.we think, made the mistake of treating the secondary as the primary; like taking the moon for the sun. The bond’and- deed being executed-expressly in pursuance of the resolution-of tlie corporation,-could shine with' only a' reflected light; whereas the court treated them as shining with original, primary light. The fact that the by-laws of the corporation' invested the president with- certain powers; touching contracting-' and executing contracts, would not prevent the corporation' from--exercising like powers; as it is merely a business corporation, and when it acted-as principal, the president merely acted as agent in executing its orders. The court erred in not granting- a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 S.E. 273, 80 Ga. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/east-rome-town-co-v-brower-ga-1888.