Ross v. Grinalds

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ross v. Grinalds

71 S.E.2d 294, 86 Ga. App. 180, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 909

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 9, 1952

Docket34029

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.E.2d 294 (Ross v. Grinalds) 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

Ross v. Grinalds, 71 S.E.2d 294, 86 Ga. App. 180, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 909 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

“Where the agency is known, and the credit is not expressly given to the agent, he shall not be personally responsible upon the contract.” Code, § 4-406. Agency is disclosed by the following [181]*181statements in the written order placed by the defendants, A. S. Grinalds, R. T. Grinalds, and A. S. Grinalds Jr., doing business as A. S. Grinalds & Sons: “For Norman Lumber Company . . Please draw draft on Norman Lumber Company. . . Ship From: Norman Lumber Company; To: Norman Lumber Company. . . Carbon Copy of invoice to A. S. Grinalds & Sons, Macon, Ga. Put our number and customer’s number on invoices.” Thus, agency being shown, there was no issue which required submission to the jury in the absence of allegations that credit was expressly extended to the agent (Bank of the University v. Hamilton, 78 Ga. 312 (a) ), or that the authority assumed by the defendants was unauthorized. Cambridge v. Bache, 25 Ga. App. 815 (104 S. E. 914). The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition as amended, which sought to recover from the defendants damages for an alleged breach of a contract.

Decided May 9, 1952 Rehearing denied May 22, 1952. Denmark Groover, Hall & Bloch, for plaintiff in error. Martin, Snow & Grant, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

“Where the agency is known, and the credit is not expressly given to the agent, he shall not be personally responsible upon the contract.” Code, § 4-406. Agency is disclosed by the following [181]*181statements in the written order placed by the defendants, A. S. Grinalds, R. T. Grinalds, and A. S. Grinalds Jr., doing business as A. S. Grinalds & Sons: “For Norman Lumber Company . . Please draw draft on Norman Lumber Company. . . Ship From: Norman Lumber Company; To: Norman Lumber Company. . . Carbon Copy of invoice to A. S. Grinalds & Sons, Macon, Ga. Put our number and customer’s number on invoices.” Thus, agency being shown, there was no issue which required submission to the jury in the absence of allegations that credit was expressly extended to the agent (Bank of the University v. Hamilton, 78 Ga. 312 (a) ), or that the authority assumed by the defendants was unauthorized. Cambridge v. Bache, 25 Ga. App. 815 (104 S. E. 914). The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition as amended, which sought to recover from the defendants damages for an alleged breach of a contract.

Decided May 9, 1952 Rehearing denied May 22, 1952. Denmark Groover, Hall & Bloch, for plaintiff in error. Martin, Snow & Grant, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 294, 86 Ga. App. 180, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-grinalds-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack