Ketchum v. Verdell
42 Ga. 534
Opinions
The charge of the Court to the jury, “ That it was doubtful whether the order of the defendant made Tate his agent to purchase the corn,” was error, under the provisions of the 3183d section of the Code. According to the evidence in the case, as disclosed by the record, the Court should have charged the jury as to the ratification, by defendant, of the sale of the corn, by plaintiff to the defendant.
Let the judgment of the Court below be reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ketchum v. Verdell, 42 Ga. 534 (Ga. 1871).
42 Ga. 534 (Ketchum v. Verdell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Haney School Furniture Co. v. Hightower Baptist Institute
38 S.E. 761 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Moffitt-West Drug Co. v. Lyneman
10 Colo. App. 249 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1897)