Greene v. Ballard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Greene v. Ballard

165 S.E. 309, 45 Ga. App. 509

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 31, 1932

Docket22326

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 309 (Greene v. Ballard) 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

Greene v. Ballard, 165 S.E. 309, 45 Ga. App. 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The items of the suit stricken on special demurrers were, as a matter of law, not legal charges against the estate involved, and those demurrers were properly sustained.

2. “While a married woman has such contractual ability that she can make a special contract to pay for necessaries furnished to her, still where it does not affirmatively appear that she has so contracted, and it merely appears that the necessaries were furnished, it is to be presumed that she contracted for them in the right of her general agency for her husband, and that he, and not she, is liable for them.” Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga. App. 371, 378, 379 (71 S. E. 691) ; Civil Code (1910), §§ 2996, 2997; Freeman v. Holmes, 62 Ga. 556; Rushing v. Clancy, 92 Ga. 769 (19 S. E. 711). Applying the principle of the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the estate of the deceased mother of the plaintiff was not liable for the necessaries furnished the mother during her last illness, and the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Hooper, JJ., coneur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. The items of the suit stricken on special demurrers were, as a matter of law, not legal charges against the estate involved, and those demurrers were properly sustained.

2. “While a married woman has such contractual ability that she can make a special contract to pay for necessaries furnished to her, still where it does not affirmatively appear that she has so contracted, and it merely appears that the necessaries were furnished, it is to be presumed that she contracted for them in the right of her general agency for her husband, and that he, and not she, is liable for them.” Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga. App. 371, 378, 379 (71 S. E. 691) ; Civil Code (1910), §§ 2996, 2997; Freeman v. Holmes, 62 Ga. 556; Rushing v. Clancy, 92 Ga. 769 (19 S. E. 711). Applying the principle of the foregoing ruling to the facts of the instant case, the estate of the deceased mother of the plaintiff was not liable for the necessaries furnished the mother during her last illness, and the court did not err in awarding a nonsuit. Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Hooper, JJ., coneur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.E. 309, 45 Ga. App. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-ballard-gactapp-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack