Legal Opinion · Dissent

Durden v. Hilton Head Bank & Trust Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided December 5, 1990No. A90A1519Published

1DissentPope, Judge

I must respectfully dissent. Material factual issues remain and summary judgment is improper. The majority relies on the first part of the holding of Bean v. Barron, 176 Ga. 285 (2) (168 SE 259) (1932) which states that a principal is charged with knowledge previously acquired by his agent relating to the subject matter of his agency and which the agent then had in mind when acting for the principal, but the majority ignores the second, entirely separate part of the holding set out in Bean, that the principal also may be charged with knowledge of the agent even if the agent does not…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bean v. BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  2. Fowler v. LathamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  3. Marsden v. Southeastern Sash & Door Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API