Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Bostick
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
1. It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the petition here does not set out a cause of action against it for the reason that it is sought to charge the agent of the owner of the property for omissions to repair, which omissions, at most, amounted to nonfeasance rather than misfeasance. As stated in Owens v. Nichols, 139 Ga. 475 (1) (77 S. E. 635), the rule is as follows: “An agent is not ordinarily liable to third persons for nonfeasance. Kimbrough v. Boswell, 119 Ga. 201 [45 S. E. 977]. An agent is, however, liable to third persons for misfeasance. Nonfeasance is the total omission…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Coffer v. BradshawCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- Owens v. NicholsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Kimbrough v. BoswellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
- Risby v. Sharp-Boylston CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Hoppendietzel v. WadeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
3Cited by10 opinions
- Howell v. AyersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Herring v. R. L. Mathis Certified Dairy Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
- Ramey v. PritchettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
- Midland Properties Co. v. FarmerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- McClesky v. VERICON RESOURCES, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.