Americus Oil Co v. Gurr
| Decision Date | 05 February 1902 |
| Citation | 40 S.E. 780,114 Ga. 624 |
| Parties | AMERICUS OIL CO. v. GURR. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
AGENCY—EVIDENCE—EXTENT OP AUTHORITY.
1. The proposition that agency cannot be proved by evidence of the declarations or conduct of the alleged agent is no longer open to discussion.
2. It is needless to constantly reiterate and publish rulings upon settled questions.
3. If.an agent whose authority is limited to purchasing with cash furnished him by his principal buys on credit, the latter is not liable for the price of things so bought; and one who deals with such a special agent is bound to inform himself as to the extent of the agent's authority.
4. Applying these rules to the facts of this case, the verdict was entirely unsupported.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court Sumter county; Z. A. Llttlejohn, Judge.
Action by W. H. Gurr against the Amerl cus Oil Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.
J. H. Lumpkin, for plaintiff in error.
W. P. Wallis and R. L. Maynard, for defendant in error.
An action was brought in the superior court of Sumter county by W. H. Gurr against the Americus Oil Company for the price of certain cotton seed. There was a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant complains here of the court's refusal to grant it a new trial. The theory of the plaintiff was that he sold the seed to one Ward, as agent of the defendant; that it received the seed, and was therefore liable to him for the price thereof. The motion for a new trial presents a number of points involving familiar and well-settled rules of the law of agency.
1. It is quite apparent that his honor committed divers errors in violation of the established rule that agency cannot be proved either by the declarations or conduct of the alleged agent. We do not however, care to state or discuss in detail the particular rulings bore referred to. because so doing would neither add anything new to this branch of the law, nor elucidate the same.
2. In several grounds of the motion, complaint is made of alleged error in admitting testimony bearing upon Issues other than that of agency. Many of the rulings thus excepted to were manifestly right, and in some there was, perhaps, error, but none of them are of sufficient importance or novelty to require special notice.
3. 4. We reverse the judgment rendered in this case because it was contrary to law. The plaintiff failed entirely to show that Ward was the general agent of the defendant company, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Railroad Co. v. Jolly Bros.
...agency cannot be proved by evidence describing the contract of the alleged agent. Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 40 S. E. Rep., 780; s. c. 114 Ga. 624; 1 Wood's Railway Law, Gardner v. Railroad Co., 70 Me. 181; Thayer v. Railroad Co., 24 Vt. 440; Vanderwerker v. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 125; Herring......
-
Howard Supply Co. v. Bunn
... ... enough to support the verdict of the jury. The facts differ ... from those in the Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga ... ...
-
Stokes v. Walker
...this contention. While it is true that an agent empowered to sell for cash only has no authority to extend credit (Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624, 40 S. E. 780; Chapman v. Americus Oil Co., 117 Ga. 881, 45 S. E. 268), we do not think that under the contract here involved the defendan......
-
Jackson v. Lang
...Co. v. Morel, 110 Ga. 321, 35 S.E. 312; Almand & George v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 113 Ga. 983(3), 39 S.E. 421; Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624, 40 S.E. 780; Horton v. Tway, 43 Ga. App. 164, 158 S.E. 365. c. It is further the contention of counsel for plaintiff that there was sufficie......