Hardy & Co. v. Jones Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hardy & Co. v. Jones Bros.

79 S.E. 246, 13 Ga. App. 457, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 200

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1913

Docket5019

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 246 (Hardy & Co. v. Jones 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

Hardy & Co. v. Jones Bros., 79 S.E. 246, 13 Ga. App. 457, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 200 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. If goods owned by a partnership be sold by one of the partners, the partnership may recover the purehase-price in its own name, though the purchaser has no knowledge of the existence of the partnership.

2. The evidence authorized, if it did not demand, the verdict. The assignment of error upon the rejection of evidence was not well taken, both because it does not distinctly appear what the witness would have testified, and because the ruling was proper upon the objection as set forth in the answer to the certiorari. The defendant did not claim to have had an agreement with the plaintiff partnership which would authorize the set-off pleaded; and if the contract relied on was made with one of the partners solely in his individual capacity, and not in behalf of the firm, evidence as to the agreement of the partners was not relevant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. If goods owned by a partnership be sold by one of the partners, the partnership may recover the purehase-price in its own name, though the purchaser has no knowledge of the existence of the partnership.

2. The evidence authorized, if it did not demand, the verdict. The assignment of error upon the rejection of evidence was not well taken, both because it does not distinctly appear what the witness would have testified, and because the ruling was proper upon the objection as set forth in the answer to the certiorari. The defendant did not claim to have had an agreement with the plaintiff partnership which would authorize the set-off pleaded; and if the contract relied on was made with one of the partners solely in his individual capacity, and not in behalf of the firm, evidence as to the agreement of the partners was not relevant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 246, 13 Ga. App. 457, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardy-co-v-jones-bros-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack