Hill v. Van Duzer

36 S.E. 966, 111 Ga. 867, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 855
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 8, 1900·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, P. J.

1. The points soughtto be made as to alleged error in admitting testimony were not properly presented.

2. Mere agency to collect a particular claim does not authorize the agent to agree that the proceeds thereof shall be applied to a debt due by his principal.

3. Neither a widow nor her agent, whatever his authority, can lawfully apply the proceeds of a year’s support set apart for the benefit of herself and minor children to the payment of a pre-existing debt due by her individually, in the consideration of which the minors had no interest.

4. Applying the principles laid down in the two preceding notes to the facts of the present case, the verdict complained of was without evidence to support it and ought to have been set aside.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Hill v. Van Duzer, 36 S.E. 966, 111 Ga. 867, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 855 (Ga. 1900).

36 S.E. 966 (Hill v. Van Duzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lunsford v. Kersey
13 S.E.2d 803 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Whitfield v. Maddox
8 S.E.2d 54 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
American Insurance v. Seminole County Board of Education
181 S.E. 783 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Norwood-Hyde Park Bank & Trust Co. v. Howard
32 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 191 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1934)
Simpson v. Kelley
156 S.E. 198 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Anders v. First National Bank
142 S.E. 98 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Bank of Cuthbert v. Taylor
123 S.E. 262 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Phillips v. Cook
123 S.E. 108 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1924)
Caldwell v. Zimmerman
93 S.E. 559 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Gibbs v. Land
71 S.E. 136 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)