Legal Opinion

Piedmont Operating Co. v. Cummings

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 3, 1929No. 19198PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. The rule that a principal is bound to the extent of the authority which he has apparently conferred upon his agent has no reference to a situation in which a person affected by the acts of the agent does not deal with the agent in reliance upon the authority which the principal has apparently conferred upon him. 2 C. J. 575. Where an employee, in operating an automobile without actual authority from *398the employer, runs over another person and injures him, the injured person is not injured as a result of any dealings which he has had with the driver of the automobile as the agent of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Minnesota Lumber Co. v. Hobbs & LivingstonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Bender v. Hill Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  3. Denver Omnibus & Cab Co. v. KrebsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1919

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Buffalo Insurance v. Star Photo Finishing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
  2. Carl's Italian Restaurant v. Truck Insurance ExchangeColorado Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. McWilliamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
  4. Interstate Life &C. Ins. Co. v. WilmontCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
  5. Interstate Financial Corp. v. AppelCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API