Glass v. Brittain Bros.
94 S.E. 814, 21 Ga. App. 634, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 445
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Glass v. Brittain Bros., 94 S.E. 814, 21 Ga. App. 634, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 445 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).
94 S.E. 814 (Glass v. Brittain Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)