Eberhardt Machine Works v. Houser

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Eberhardt Machine Works v. Houser

88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 35, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 98

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 1, 1916

Docket6718

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 751 (Eberhardt Machine Works v. Houser) 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

Eberhardt Machine Works v. Houser, 88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 35, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

The trial judge did not err in awarding a nonsuit. The evidence did not disclose that the husband of the defendant was authorized to make in her behalf the contract sued upon, but, to the contrary, tended to show that the alleged agent was acting in his individual capacity; nor does it appear that there was such a subsequent ratification as would bind the defendant. Under the express limitations fixed by the writings relied upon by the plaintiff as showing authority on the part of the alleged agent to bind the defendant, the subject-matter of the contract which forms the basis of the suit was clearly not included, even construing the writings liberally. Judgment affirmed.

G. L. Shepard, for plaintiffs. Duncan & Nunn, for defendant.

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

Wade, J.

The trial judge did not err in awarding a nonsuit. The evidence did not disclose that the husband of the defendant was authorized to make in her behalf the contract sued upon, but, to the contrary, tended to show that the alleged agent was acting in his individual capacity; nor does it appear that there was such a subsequent ratification as would bind the defendant. Under the express limitations fixed by the writings relied upon by the plaintiff as showing authority on the part of the alleged agent to bind the defendant, the subject-matter of the contract which forms the basis of the suit was clearly not included, even construing the writings liberally. Judgment affirmed.

G. L. Shepard, for plaintiffs. Duncan & Nunn, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 751, 18 Ga. App. 35, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eberhardt-machine-works-v-houser-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack