Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Wisenbaker
Opinion
1. “The fact that the husband cultivates his wife’s lands does not raise -a presumption of law or of fact that he is her agent.” Jones v. Harrell, 110 Ga. 373 (3), 379 (35 S. E. 690). See also Blount v. Dugger, 115 Ga. 109 (41 S. E. 270); Axson v. Belt, 103 Ga. 578 (30 S. E. 262); Cornelia Planmg Mill Co. v. Wilcox, 129 Ga. 522 (59 S. E. 223).
2. In this case there was no evidence of a direct sale to the defendant herself, and none from which it could he legitimately inferred that her husband, who made the purchase, was actually acting as her agent or that she received the benefit of the fertilizers sold to him. The court therefore did not err in awarding a nonsuit. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
89 S.E. 1053 (Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Wisenbaker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.