Legal Opinion

Hatcher v. Seitz

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 14, 1953No. 34466PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.

The plaintiff in error contends that the court erred in granting a nonsuit because the evidence presented a question for the jury as to agency. We agree. The plaintiff testified that the defendant Truelove told him, “Mr. Seitz was driving the car for me.” The word “for” as used with its context in such statement means “on behalf of” the defendant Truelove. Chelsea Corp. v. Steward, 82 Ga. App. 679, 686 (62 S. E. 2d, 627); Young v. Wilson, 183 Ga. 69, 74 (187 S. E. 44); 17 Words & Phrases, p. 215. Truelove denied having made such a statement and testified that Seitz had merely borrowed the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Conney v. Atlantic Greyhound Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  2. Young v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  3. Baker v. GoddardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  4. Trawick v. ChamblissCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  5. Read v. City & Suburban Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Wielgorecki v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
  2. Fordham v. Garrett-Schwartz Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
  3. Evans v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API