Woodruff v. McGehee

30 Ga. 158
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Stephens, J.,

delivering the opinion.

The only reason assigned for the rejection of this warranty, is that it is made to the agent, the principal not being known in the transaction. But the authorities are express that the principal may claim all his rights, though not at first known, just as if he had been known, with the single limitation that the other party shall not lose any right which he would have against the agent if the agent were principal as he had first been supposed to be. See Story on Agency, sec. 418. The reason of the doctrine is, that it is but just that every man should have what really, though secretly, belongs to him, so far as he can obtain it without injuring another by appearing in his true character of owner. We think the action is maintainable in the name of the before unknown principal, and that the evidence ought to have been admitted.

Judgment reversed.

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

Woodruff v. McGehee, 30 Ga. 158 (Ga. 1860).

30 Ga. 158 (Woodruff v. McGehee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lingo v. Phœnix Hermetic Co.
121 S.E. 253 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Planters Gin & Warehouse Co. v. Pitts Banking Co.
102 S.E. 183 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)
Archer v. . McClure
81 S.E. 1081 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Winslow Bros. v. Staton
63 S.E. 950 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)
Nicholson v. . Dover
58 S.E. 444 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1907)
Dodd Grocery Co. v. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co.
37 S.E. 981 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
Watertown Steam Engine Co. v. Palmer Bros.
10 S.E. 969 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1890)
Atlanta & West Point Railroad v. Texas Grate Co.
81 Ga. 602 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1888)