Legal Opinion
Pope v. Harper
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided November 15, 1929No. 19583PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. “Contracts of dual agency are not void per se, but only so ■when the fact that the agent represented both parties was not known to each.” Red Cypress Lumber Co. v. Perry, 118 Ga. 876 (45 S. E. 674): While such an agency requires the consent of each principal in order to legalize its dual character, yet, where the fact that the agent is representing several principals is known to each and they go forward with the transaction without objecting, their consent will be implied both as between themselves and as to such agent. Winer v. Flournoy Realty Co., 27 Ga. App. 87 (3) (107 S. E. 398);…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- F. & W. Grand Five-Ten-Twenty-Five Cent Stores Inc. v. EisemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
- Winer v. Flournoy Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Napier v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
- Shepard v. ChappellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Red Cypress Lumber Co. v. PerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Walker v. StephensSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Parker v. AverettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Marchel v. GEORGIA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
- Edwards-Warren Tire Co. v. ColeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988