Holland v. Beil
| Decision Date | 27 April 1892 |
| Citation | 15 S.E. 302,89 Ga. 223 |
| Parties | Holland et al. v. Van Beil et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Evidence of Agency—Authority of Agent— Ratification—Writ of Error.
1. A general agency of one who sells a bill of goods for another cannot be established by his declaration, made at the time of the transaction, to the effect that he was the general agent of the other, and had the whole southern territory.
2. An agent who sold goods for the price of which a negotiable promissory note payable to his principal or order was given, has no implied authority, before the maturity of the note, and without having the same in his possession, to allow a discount upon the amount of the note, and receive payment of the balance. In order to discharge the makers by such payment, it would be necessary to prove either express authority or a general agency from which authority could be inferred, or establish a ratification by the principal.
3. No ratification could be inferred from mere forbearance to bring suit on the note for a length of time short of the period of limitation, without some evidence of knowledge by the principal that the payment had been made.
4. The foregoing propositions would rule the case on its merits, with the result of affirming the judgment; but on looking to the judge's certificate to the bill of exceptions, the same not stating that the bill of exceptions contains (or specifies) all of the evidence material to a clear understanding of the errors complained of, and not mentioning the evidence at all, there is no valid writ of error.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Fulton county; Marshall J. Clarke, Judge.
Action by Van Beil & Fisk against Holland & Tye on a note. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendants bring error. Dismissed.
R. J. Jordan, for plaintiffs in error.
B. F. Abbott, for defendants in error.
Writ of error dismissed.
Simmons, J., not presiding.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Smith
...the earlier cases of Gresham v. Turner, 88 Ga. 160, 13 S. E. 946, Lovingood v. Roberts, 89 Ga. 417, 15 S. E. 495, and Holland v. Van Beil, 89 Ga. 223, 15 S. E. 302, were abrogated by statute. See Pusey v. Sweat, 92 Ga. 809, 19 S. E. 816, Gregory v. Daniel, 93 Ga. 795, 20 S. E. 656, and Scot......
-
Zazzaro v. Universal Motors, Inc.
... ... 2 C.J.S. Agency, p. 1274; Seiberling v. Demaree, 27 Neb. 854, 44 N.W. 46; Holland v. Van Beil, 89 Ga. 223, 15 S.E. 302; 1 Mechem, Op.Cit. p. 620, § 869. Particularly is this so after the agent has delivered the note to the ... ...
-
Davis v. Smith
... ... Turner, 88 Ga. 160, 13 S.E. 946, Lovingood v ... Roberts, 89 Ga. 417, 15 S.E. 495, and Holland v. Van ... Beil, 89 Ga. 223, 15 S.E. 302, were abrogated by ... statute. See Pusey v. Sweat, 92 Ga. 809, 19 S.E ... 816, ... ...
-
Franklin County Lumber Co v. Grady County
...are not admissible to prove his agency Is, however, not subject to such qualification. Williams v. Kelsey, 6 Ga. 365; Holland v. Van Bell, 89 Ga. 223, 15 S. E. 302; Abel v. jarratt, 100 Ga. 732, 28 S. E. 453; Massillon Engine Co. v. Akerman, 110 Ga. 570, 35 S. E. 635. Consequently the court......