Robbins Home Improvement Co. v. Truelove

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Robbins Home Improvement Co. v. Truelove

92 S.E.2d 226, 93 Ga. App. 501, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 781

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 13, 1956

Docket36011, 36036

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 226 (Robbins Home Improvement Co. v. Truelove) 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

Robbins Home Improvement Co. v. Truelove, 92 S.E.2d 226, 93 Ga. App. 501, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Gardner, P. J.

We have given considerable time to the study of this record. To us the evidence clearly makes an issue of facts to be determined by a jury. The jury were authorized to find, under the evidence, that Raymond Perry was the employee of the [505]*505defendant. This being true, we deem it useless to cite any authority. Counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendant argued the question in an issue of facts as to whether or not under all the facts and circumstances submitted to the jury Raymond Perry was the agent of the defendant.or an independent contractor or an agent of the alleged independent contractor Birdsong. The jury resolved this issue against the defendant. The evidence sustains the verdict of the jury. There being no error of law committed, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill. Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Gardner, P. J.

We have given considerable time to the study of this record. To us the evidence clearly makes an issue of facts to be determined by a jury. The jury were authorized to find, under the evidence, that Raymond Perry was the employee of the [505]*505defendant. This being true, we deem it useless to cite any authority. Counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendant argued the question in an issue of facts as to whether or not under all the facts and circumstances submitted to the jury Raymond Perry was the agent of the defendant.or an independent contractor or an agent of the alleged independent contractor Birdsong. The jury resolved this issue against the defendant. The evidence sustains the verdict of the jury. There being no error of law committed, the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill. Cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 226, 93 Ga. App. 501, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 781, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robbins-home-improvement-co-v-truelove-gactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack