Render v. Jones Mercantile Co.

126 S.E. 159, 33 Ga. App. 394, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 787
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 17, 1925
Docket15711
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 159 (Render v. Jones Mercantile Co.) 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
Render v. Jones Mercantile Co., 126 S.E. 159, 33 Ga. App. 394, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 787 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. An act can not be subject to ratification unless done for and in behalf of the person adopting it and attempting to ratify it. Civil Code (1910), § 3569; Swicord v. Waxelbaum, 23 Ga. App. 297 (97 S. E. 891); Huffcutt on Agency (2d ed.), 44, 45, and eases there cited.

(a) In a suit by a merchant against a planter, to recover the purchase price of oats sold to the defendant’s overseer and charged by the plaintiff to the defendant, where there is no evidence to the effect that the overseer, in buying the oats, did so in behalf of the defendant, a subsequent promise of the defendant to the plaintiff to pay for the oats can not amount to a ratification.

2. A promise afterwards made by the defendant to the plaintiff to pay for the oats if the overseer will approve the bill is not an unconditional act, and therefore can not amount to a ratification of the act of the overseer, could it be assumed that such act is a proper subject-matter for ratification.

3. Since, by applying the above rulings to the evidence as here presented, the defendant was entitled to a direction of a verdict, certain evidence, offered by the defendant and rejected by the court, to the effect that the overseer himself was the owner of certain live stock on the defendant’s farm, over which the overseer had supervision, could have availed the defendant nothing; and, even if relevant and material, its exclusion under the present state of the record was harmless.

4. The verdict for the plaintiff was unauthorized. /

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Rubin v. Mikart, Inc.
306 S.E.2d 420 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Deal v. Dickson
209 S.E.2d 214 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1974)
Pound v. Smith
114 S.E.2d 280 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Lemmons v. City of Decatur
112 S.E.2d 597 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1960)
Smith v. Pope
111 S.E.2d 155 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Morgan v. MAY REALTY COMPANY
71 S.E.2d 438 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Greene v. Golucke
43 S.E.2d 497 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Thompson
188 S.E. 737 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
First Joint Stock Land Bank v. Pitts
173 S.E. 732 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
126 S.E. 159, 33 Ga. App. 394, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/render-v-jones-mercantile-co-gactapp-1925.