Legal Opinion

Leidy v. Gould

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 18, 1927No. 18165PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. Where one allows the continued use of his name as partner after retiring from a particular business, and thereby induces another to deal with the business as a partnership, such ostensible partner will be estopped to deny the partnership relation as to acts within the ordinary scope of such business. Civil Code (1910), § 3157; Barnett Line v. Blackmar, 53 Ga. 98; Sankey v. Columbus Iron Works, 44 Ga. 228 (2); 30 Cyc. 390. But, in order to hold the ostensible partner liable, the contract must be in relation to and in the scope of that particular business or adventure which the retiring…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shaw v. Jones, Newton & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  2. Sankey & Shorter v. Columbus Iron WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
  3. Sibley v. American Exchange National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895
  4. Hollister Bros. v. Bluthenthal & BickartCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1911
  5. Barnett Line of Steamers v. Blackmar & ChandlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Carswell v. Woodward Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  2. Brandt v. EckmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
  3. Coaxum v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  4. Rowland v. LovettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API