Georgia Military Academy v. Estill

77 Ga. 409
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 9, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 77 Ga. 409 (Georgia Military Academy v. Estill) 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.

Bluebook
Georgia Military Academy v. Estill, 77 Ga. 409 (Ga. 1886).

Opinion

Jackson, Chief Justice.

J. H. Estill sued the Georgia Military Academy, a corporation located in Savannah, on an account for printing done for the academy in advertising it in the Savannah Morning News, and in printing circulars for the academy touching the school, its officers, studies, advantages, etc. The account was made by B. J. Burgess, as superintendent of the academy, and the judge of the city court held the academy responsible. The question made by the assignments of error is, when analyzed, was the superintendent authorized to make the account and have it charged to the corporation?

1. The corporation was organized, not only to build a school-house, as contended for by plaintiff in error, but to supervise and carry on the school, as we understand its charter. When it appointed and held out to the world its superintendent as general agent, it became liable for the contracts made by the agent within the scope of its business entrusted to him. What was that business? Not [412]*412only to teach, as we think, but to make such publications as will advance the interests of the academy entrusted to the superintendent. Code of Georgia, §§2194, 2204.

2. The lease to the superintendent and private contracts with him, unknown to the world, cannot affect the contractor with the agent using means usual and necessary for effectually doing the work committed to him by the principal. Oode, §2196.

3. These principles are especially applicable to agents of corporations aggregate like this, because such bodies corporate can act only through agents. The Scofield Rolling Mill vs. The State, 54 Ga. 635-638-9.

It is believed that these principles, applied to the facts represented at the head of this opinion, required the judgment rendered by the judge of the city court of Savannah and make further comment unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Sims T. V., Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
131 S.E.2d 790 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Ford Motor Co. v. Abercrombie
62 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Edge v. Alertox Inc.
171 S.E. 181 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Dover Copper Mining Co. v. Doenges
12 P.2d 288 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
Continental Supply Co. v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co.
1924 OK 1166 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Pickens Co. v. Thomas
111 S.E. 27 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Newcomb Hotel Co. v. Corbett
101 S.E. 713 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Pullman Co.
50 S.E. 1008 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Spelman v. Gold Coin Mining & Milling Co.
55 L.R.A. 640 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Trent v. Sherlock
61 P. 650 (Montana Supreme Court, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 Ga. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-military-academy-v-estill-ga-1886.