Legal Opinion
Dannenberg Co. v. Hughes
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided March 17, 1923No. 13834PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) A traveling salesman is a special agent whose authority is presumed to be limited to taking and receiving orders to be transmitted to his principal for acceptance. Brandenstein v. Douglas, 105 Ga. 845 (32 S. E. 341); Cable Co. v. Hancock, 2 Ga. App. 73, 74 (58 S. E. 319); Hopkins v. Armour, 8 Ga. App. 442, 444 (69 S. E. 580). The burden is upon one dealing with a special agent to show authority from his principal for any act of the agent other than such acts as are usual and incident to the due performance of the particular purpose of his agency. Wise v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Monk v. McDanielSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Cable Co. v. HancockCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Wise v. Mohawk Rubber Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Hopkins & Co. v. Armour & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
- Singer v. Santa Paula Commercial Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Cohen v. SafferCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Miles v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Silver v. Crescent Hat Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- ROYAL OIL COMPANY, INC. v. HooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Royal Oil Co. v. HooksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.