Thompson-Cauthorn Motor Co. v. Ross

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson-Cauthorn Motor Co. v. Ross

139 S.E. 89, 37 Ga. App. 105, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 495

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1927

Docket18142

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 S.E. 89 (Thompson-Cauthorn Motor Co. v. Ross) 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

Thompson-Cauthorn Motor Co. v. Ross, 139 S.E. 89, 37 Ga. App. 105, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 495 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “One who deals with a special agent is chargeable with notice of the extent of the latter’s authority; and if such agent makes a settlement not within the scope of his agency, the settlement is not binding upon the principal.” Baldwin Fertilizer Co. v. Thompson, 106 Ga. 480 (32 S. E. 591).

2. “A principal is not bound or affected by the unauthorized acts of a special agent with limited powers, unless he ratifies the same.” Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Gray, 107 Ga. 110 (4) (32 S. E. 948).

3. In the instant ease the transactions of the special agent of the defendant corporation with the plaintiff (the transactions occurring after the plaintiff’s written application to the defendant to purchase an automobile had been rejected by the defendant, and the “earnest money” deposited by the plaintiff had been returned to him by the defendant) were without the scope of his agency and were not ratified by his principal.

4. It follows that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was contrary to law, and that the court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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