Legal Opinion

Barrow v. Georgia Chemical Works

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 14, 1925No. 16158PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.

Georgia Chemical Works sued Barrow and McKenzie on a certain fertilizer note signed “Barrow & McKenzie, by J. N. McKenzie.” Barrow pleaded no partnership and non est factum. The court directed a verdict against both defendants, and Barrow excepted. The controlling question in the case is whether or not defendants were partners as to third persons. The parts of the voluminous written contract essential to the determination of the question presented may be summarized as follows: B. leased to M. for a period of five years, at a specified annual rental, designated lands, live stock, wagons, and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Buckner v. LeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
  2. Willingham & Cone v. HugueninSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  3. Powell v. Moore, Marsh & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1887
  4. Hand Trading Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  5. Doss v. RaganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brigitte Schlange-Schoeningen v. James A. Parrish and W. Daniel WhitehurstCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
  2. Beckham v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API