Holland v. Beil

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Simmons
• Citation: Holland v. Beil, 15 S.E. 302, 89 Ga. 223 (Ga. 1892)
• Decision Date: 27 April 1892
• Parties: Holland et al. v. Van Beil et al.

15 S.E. 302

89 Ga. 223

Holland et al.

v.Van Beil et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 27, 1892.

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...