Holley v. Sneed

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holley v. Sneed

167 S.E. 625, 46 Ga. App. 309, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 37

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 25, 1933

Docket22481

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 625 (Holley v. Sneed) 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

Holley v. Sneed, 167 S.E. 625, 46 Ga. App. 309, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 37 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Partners are not liable for a tort committed by a co-partner in which they did not participate. Such a tort is beyond the scope of the partnership business and binds neither the partnership nor the other partners. Such is the law in this State as embodied in section 3187 of the Civil Code of 1910. Goodrich v. Goldstein, 32 Ga. App. 405 (123 S. E. 754), and cit.

2. In the instant case C. B. Sneed, brought suit for personal injuries against “R. E. Holley, W. P. Holley Jr., and Guy Garner, a copartnership doing business under the name of the Holley Auto Parts Company, and R. E. Holley, individually.” The allegations of the petition showed that the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by a tort committed by R. E. Holley alone, and the petition set out a cause of action against him. However, under the ruling in the preceding paragraph, no cause of action was set forth against the other two partners, W. P. Holley Jr. and Guy Garner, or against the partnership, and the court erred in not sustaining the amplification of the general demurrer and in refusing to dismiss the petition as to those defendants.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoncur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. Partners are not liable for a tort committed by a co-partner in which they did not participate. Such a tort is beyond the scope of the partnership business and binds neither the partnership nor the other partners. Such is the law in this State as embodied in section 3187 of the Civil Code of 1910. Goodrich v. Goldstein, 32 Ga. App. 405 (123 S. E. 754), and cit.

2. In the instant case C. B. Sneed, brought suit for personal injuries against “R. E. Holley, W. P. Holley Jr., and Guy Garner, a copartnership doing business under the name of the Holley Auto Parts Company, and R. E. Holley, individually.” The allegations of the petition showed that the injuries of the plaintiff were caused by a tort committed by R. E. Holley alone, and the petition set out a cause of action against him. However, under the ruling in the preceding paragraph, no cause of action was set forth against the other two partners, W. P. Holley Jr. and Guy Garner, or against the partnership, and the court erred in not sustaining the amplification of the general demurrer and in refusing to dismiss the petition as to those defendants.

Judgment reversed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., eoncur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 625, 46 Ga. App. 309, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 37, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holley-v-sneed-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack