Mumford v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. In actions for malicious use of legal process, the question as to probable cause is whether the defendant had reasonable ground to believe that the plaintiff was indebted to-him in some amount as alleged in the former action. Hartshorn v. Smith, 104 Ga. 235 (2), 239 (30 S. E. 666); Sirmans v. Peterson, 42 Ga. App. 707, 709 (157 S. E. 341).
2. Notice to an agent of any matter connected with his agency is notice to the principal. Actual notice to the agent is imputed actual notice to the principal. Civil Code (1910), § 3599; Wiley v. Rome Insurance Co., 12 Ga. App. 186, 188 (76 S. E. 1067) ;…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hicks v. BrantleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Hartshorn v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Darnell v. ShirleyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Slater v. KimbroSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Wiley v. Rome InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Johns v. GibsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Timeplan Loan & Investment Corp. v. ColbertCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963