International Power Co. v. Hardy

45 S.E. 311, 118 Ga. 512, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 597
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 13, 1903·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lamar, J.

Even if, under the decision in Fla. R. Co. v. Varnedoe, 81 Ga. 175 (7), the letters be construed as the individual contract of Hoadley, and therefore incapable of ratification, the company, by reference or otherwise, could adopt the same terms as therein stated, and the plaintiff may give proof thereof before the jury. The petition alleges the employment of the plaintiff by the defendant, performance of the services, with a statement of the items of the work done, and the amount to which he was entitled. With or without the letters, there was enough in the petition to withstand a general motion to dismiss after the first term. S. C. R. Co. v. Augusta Co., 111 Ga. 425.

Judgment affirmed.

By five Justices.

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

International Power Co. v. Hardy, 45 S.E. 311, 118 Ga. 512, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 597 (Ga. 1903).

45 S.E. 311 (International Power Co. v. Hardy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Thigpen v. Maddox & Griffin
192 S.E. 925 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Tice Co. v. Evans
123 S.E. 742 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Valdes Hotel Co. v. Ferrell
86 S.E. 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Kilkenny Plantation v. Furber
61 S.E. 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Lippincott & Co. v. Behre
50 S.E. 467 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Butler v. Tifton, Thomasville & Gulf Railway Co.
49 S.E. 763 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)