Legal Opinion
Benton v. Roberts
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 20, 1926No. 16992PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
1. While it is true that an agent for hire must exercise ordinary care generally about the business of his principal, it is also the rule that if he exceeds or violates his instructions and if his principal suffers damage as a consequence, the agent will be liable. Instructions must be followed, and in a suit for damages by the principal against the agent for a breach of the contract of agency, where it is shown that the instructions were materially violated, it is unnecessary to allege’ in terms that the agent was negligent. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3576, 3581; Cave v. Lougee, 134 Ga. 135 (67…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Holmes v. Langston & WoodsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Smith v. Georgia Loan, Savings & Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Cox v. SullivanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Byrd Printing Co. v. Whitaker Paper Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Render & Hammett v. Hartford Fire InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. RosamondSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
- Fort Valley Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- Waddey v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Dedousis v. First National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
- Chicago Insurance v. CamorsDistrict Court, N.D. Georgia · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.