Ford Motor Co. v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ford Motor Co. v. Williams

134 S.E.2d 483, 108 Ga. App. 723, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 758

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 3, 1963

Docket39915

StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E.2d 483 (Ford Motor Co. v. Williams) 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

Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 134 S.E.2d 483, 108 Ga. App. 723, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court, Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 219 Ga. 505, having reversed our judgment of May 16, 1963, Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 108 Ga. App. 21 (132 SE2d 206), as contained in the second division thereof upon the basis that the allegation of the petition that the defendant’s agent entered the plaintiff’s home “for the purpose of removing therefrom property belonging to the plaintiff,” not having been withdrawn or changed by amendment, disclosed that the agent was not in the prosecution of and within the scope of his master’s business thus rendering each of the three counts in the petition subject to the general demurrer, our judgment is vacated and the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer on that ground is

Reversed.

All the Judges concur, except Jordan, J., who is disqualified.

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

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court, Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 219 Ga. 505, having reversed our judgment of May 16, 1963, Ford Motor Co. v. Williams, 108 Ga. App. 21 (132 SE2d 206), as contained in the second division thereof upon the basis that the allegation of the petition that the defendant’s agent entered the plaintiff’s home “for the purpose of removing therefrom property belonging to the plaintiff,” not having been withdrawn or changed by amendment, disclosed that the agent was not in the prosecution of and within the scope of his master’s business thus rendering each of the three counts in the petition subject to the general demurrer, our judgment is vacated and the judgment of the trial court overruling the general demurrer on that ground is

Reversed.

All the Judges concur, except Jordan, J., who is disqualified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 S.E.2d 483, 108 Ga. App. 723, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-motor-co-v-williams-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack