Doe ex dem. Shanks v. Roe
Supreme Court of Georgia
Ejectment. Nonsuit. Decided by Judge Clark, Superior Court of Early County, April Term, 1867. This was ejectment on the demises of William Durham, James D. Shanks, et al., for lot of land number two hundred and thirty-nine, in the twenty-eighth district of said county. Plaintiff read in evidence the grant for said lot from the State to William Durham. The locus in quo was admitted. The plaintiff closed.
Read the full summary
Ejectment. Nonsuit. Decided by Judge Clark, Superior Court of Early County, April Term, 1867. This was ejectment on the demises of William Durham, James D. Shanks, et al., for lot of land number two hundred and thirty-nine, in the twenty-eighth district of said county. Plaintiff read in evidence the grant for said lot from the State to William Durham. The locus in quo was admitted. The plaintiff closed. Defendant’s attorneys examined before the Cow't Richard Sims and Samuel S. Staeeord, attorneys for plaintiff, who admitted that they did not know William Durham, had never seen him, and did…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
1. Ought the Court to have dismissed this action ? We think not. The facts are very similar to those in the case of Kinsey vs. Sensbough, 17 Ga. R., 540. There the attorney had no authority to use the name of Sensbough, never knew him, was employed by Eogers, and used Sensbough’s name for the benefit of Eogers. Upon this state of facts, the Court says, “Although that attorney may not know, and may not represent him, yet Harrison Eogers may know him, and be authorized by him to have this suit brought.” P. 542. So here, while the attorneys may not be authorized to use the name of Durham,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hart Lumber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Jackson v. SandersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Hardwick v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Bedell v. ScarlettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
- Bedell v. ScarlettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885