Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Wisenbaker
This text of 89 S.E. 1053 (Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Wisenbaker) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
89 S.E. 1053, 18 Ga. App. 528, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virginia-carolina-chemical-co-v-wisenbaker-gactapp-1916.