Legal Opinion
Bender v. Hill Bros.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided April 18, 1923No. 14054PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
1. The fact of agency may be established by the direct testimony of the one who has assumed to act as agent (Friese v. Simpson, 15 Ga. App. 786 (4), 84 S. E. 219); and while the previous declarations of an alleged agent are not by themselves admissible to prove agency (Harris Loan Co. v. Elliott Typewriter Co., 110 Ga. 302 (1) 34 S. E. 1003; Americus Oil Co. v. Gurr, 114 Ga. 624 (1), 40 S. E. 780), after any such direct testimony has been admitted, or the fact of agency has been clearly indicated by proof of circumstances, apparent relations, and the conduct of the parties (Gable Co. v.…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Abel v. Jarratt & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Cable Co. v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Harris Loan Co. v. Elliott & Hatch Book Typewriter Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Americus Oil Co. v. GurrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Conyers v. FordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Scott v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. CumbieCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Warnock v. ElliottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Piedmont Operating Co. v. CummingsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- J. W. Starr & Sons Lumber Co. v. YorkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.