Friedman v. Odom

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Friedman v. Odom

53 S.E.2d 136, 79 Ga. App. 107, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 593

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 13, 1949

Docket32404.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 53 S.E.2d 136 (Friedman v. Odom) 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

Friedman v. Odom, 53 S.E.2d 136, 79 Ga. App. 107, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Eelton, J.

1. “An agent, who for and in behalf of his principal ¡takes the property of another without the latter’s consent, is as to him guilty of a conversion, although, being ignorant of the true owner’s1 title, the agent may have acted in perfect good faith; and such agent may be sued in trover for the property, even after his delivery of it to his principal.” Miller & Miller v. Wilson, 98 Ga. 567 (25 S. E. 578, 58 Am. St. R. 319); Haas & Howell v. Godby, 33 Ga. App. 218 (125 S. E. 897), and cases cited.

2. It was not error to exclude testimony offered to impeach a witness on a matter wholly immaterial and irrelevant to the issues involved in the case on trial. Jenkins v. State, 13 Ga. App. 82 (78 S. E. 828); Atlantic *108 Coast Line Railroad Company v. Register, 37 Ga. App. 219 (139 S. E. 735), and cases cited.

Decided April 13, 1949. II. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment'affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Eelton, J.

1. “An agent, who for and in behalf of his principal ¡takes the property of another without the latter’s consent, is as to him guilty of a conversion, although, being ignorant of the true owner’s1 title, the agent may have acted in perfect good faith; and such agent may be sued in trover for the property, even after his delivery of it to his principal.” Miller & Miller v. Wilson, 98 Ga. 567 (25 S. E. 578, 58 Am. St. R. 319); Haas & Howell v. Godby, 33 Ga. App. 218 (125 S. E. 897), and cases cited.

2. It was not error to exclude testimony offered to impeach a witness on a matter wholly immaterial and irrelevant to the issues involved in the case on trial. Jenkins v. State, 13 Ga. App. 82 (78 S. E. 828); Atlantic *108 Coast Line Railroad Company v. Register, 37 Ga. App. 219 (139 S. E. 735), and cases cited.

Decided April 13, 1949. II. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error.

3. The verdict was supported by the evidence. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment'affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.E.2d 136, 79 Ga. App. 107, 1949 Ga. App. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-odom-gactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack