Spratlin, Harrington & Thomas, Inc. v. Hawn

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant’s enumerations of error may be categorized into three basic contentions, which follow.(1) There was no special plea raising the issue of “dual agency” as to Count 3. Since “dual agency” is an affirmative defense it must be plead. Thus, the only question relative to Count 3 is whether the allegations were proved. The appellant contends the allegations were supported by sufficient proof and therefore it is entitled to recover régardles? of the merit of the other counts.(2) “Dual agency” is not void per se but perfectly proper where the fact of such agency is known…