Coffer v. Bradshaw
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtSutton, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) These defendants contend that the petition does not show any liability on their part, and that they failed in the performance of any duty required of them as employees of Swift & Company to the petitioner. Thejr base their contention upon two propositions. The first is that their failure to perform certain things, charged in the petition as negligence on their part, were mere acts of nonfeasance on tlieir part, for which they would not be liable, instead of acts of misfeasance, and that they, as employees of the corporate defendant, the owner of the mills…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Bennett v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Rollestone v. Cassirer & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Southern Railway Co. v. GrizzleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Fulton Ice & Coal Co. v. PeceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Moone v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- McCrory Stores Corporation v. AhernCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
- Hall v. HollandSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
- Miller v. MuscarelleNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- Fender v. Colonial Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1976
- Martin v. HensonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.