Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Glass v. Brittain Bros.

Glass v. Brittain Bros.

94 S.E. 814, 21 Ga. App. 634, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 445
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 22, 1918
Docket8927
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 S.E. 814 (Glass v. Brittain Bros.) 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
Glass v. Brittain Bros., 94 S.E. 814, 21 Ga. App. 634, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Opinion

Luke, J.

Where it is alleged in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution that the prosecution was instituted by the agent of the defendant, it must be proved that the agent was at that time acting within the scope of his employment or at the direction or command of his principal. The plaintiff having failed to prove his case as laid in his petition, the court did not commit error in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, O. J., and'Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Related

King v. Citizens Bank of DeKalb
76 S.E.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Barwick v. Stevens Hardware Co.
101 S.E. 584 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Janko v. Commercial Security Co.
99 S.E. 136 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 S.E. 814, 21 Ga. App. 634, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glass-v-brittain-bros-gactapp-1918.