Johnson v. Milam

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. Milam

144 S.E. 346, 38 Ga. App. 568, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 338

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 1, 1928

Docket18601

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 346 (Johnson v. Milam) 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

Johnson v. Milam, 144 S.E. 346, 38 Ga. App. 568, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 338 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. In this suit upon an account, in which the issue was whether certain persons who purchased the goods in behalf of the defendant and for his use were authorized by him to do so, there being evidence to show that the transactions were a continuation of a course of dealing in which like accounts were incurred by the same persons under like [569]*569circumstances and were paid by the defendant, and that the agency of such persons to make tire purchases had never been questioned, a finding in favor of the plaintiff was authorized. Hogg v. Cole, 34 Ga. App. 120 (128 S. E. 222), and cit.

Decided September 1, 1928. Terrell & Terrell, for plaintiff in error. E. T. Moon, contra.

2. Furthermore, there was independent evidence of agency in this case. “The agent’s authority will be construed to include all necessary and usual means for effectually executing it. Private instructions or limitations not known to persons dealing with a general agent can not affect them.” Civil Code (1910), § 3595.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict found for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. In this suit upon an account, in which the issue was whether certain persons who purchased the goods in behalf of the defendant and for his use were authorized by him to do so, there being evidence to show that the transactions were a continuation of a course of dealing in which like accounts were incurred by the same persons under like [569]*569circumstances and were paid by the defendant, and that the agency of such persons to make tire purchases had never been questioned, a finding in favor of the plaintiff was authorized. Hogg v. Cole, 34 Ga. App. 120 (128 S. E. 222), and cit.

Decided September 1, 1928. Terrell & Terrell, for plaintiff in error. E. T. Moon, contra.

2. Furthermore, there was independent evidence of agency in this case. “The agent’s authority will be construed to include all necessary and usual means for effectually executing it. Private instructions or limitations not known to persons dealing with a general agent can not affect them.” Civil Code (1910), § 3595.

3. The evidence authorized the verdict found for the plaintiff, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenldns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 346, 38 Ga. App. 568, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-milam-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack