Clark & Nunnally v. Cumming & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Principal and Agent-. Brokers. Contracts. Before Judge Hammond. Pulton Superior Court. September Term, 1885. Preston Gumming & Company brought an action of complaint on an open account against Clark & Nunnally to recover $291.30, alleged to be a balance due them on a sale of peanuts by the defendants.
Read the full summary
Principal and Agent-. Brokers. Contracts. Before Judge Hammond. Pulton Superior Court. September Term, 1885. Preston Gumming & Company brought an action of complaint on an open account against Clark & Nunnally to recover $291.30, alleged to be a balance due them on a sale of peanuts by the defendants. The latter pleaded the general issue and set-off, alleging that, on January G, 1883, they had made a contract with the -plaintiff's for the purchase of certain peanuts; that the plaintiffs failed and refused to comply with the contract; that peanuts rose in price, and that the defendants were…
1Opinion of the Court
Blandford, Justice.
The main and only question in this case is, whether a. broker can bind his principal by a contract made against the express instructions and authority of the principal.
This court holds that he cannot bind his principal under the case put.
A broker is a special agent, and derives his power and authority to bind his principal from the instruction given to him by his principal. Code, §§‘2194,2196, 2184; Story on Agency, page 32; 1 Esp., 111, 113; 32 Md., 169; 60 111., 237. When definite instructions are given by the principal to the broker to sell goods for him at a certain…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rosenstock v. TormeyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1870
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ropes v. John Rosenfeld's SonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Loveless v. FowlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- Bruce v. Calhoun First National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Brackett & Co. v. Americus Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1907