Cota v. Alexander
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Evans, Judge.
Since the verdict was directed in defendant’s favor in the trial court, we have for decision here the sole question: Did the evidence demand a finding that the money sued for represented advances over commissions earned, and that there was no express or implied agreement or promise by the agent to repay such excess to the principal? An examination of the evidence shows that a jury should have decided the issues of fact as to this question. It is apparent from the record and transcript that the trial court sustained the motion for directed verdict based upon the following…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Norris v. CoffeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Fried v. Portis Bros. Hat Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Smith v. Franklin Printing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Foster v. Union Central Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Kennesaw Life & Accident Insurance v. HendricksCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rhodes v. Top Dog, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1993