Ham v. Brown Bros.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint, from city court of Elberton — Judge Proffitt. December 12, 1906.
1Opinion of the CourtPowell, J.
1. Primarily tlie declarations of an alleged agent are not admissible to prove the agency. If the agency be otherwise prima facie proved, such declarations then become admissible in corroboration. Jones v. Harrell, 110 Ga. 380, 35 S. E. 690, and cit.
2. If, after the agency is prima facie established, the alleged agent be introduced as a witness and deny the agency, evidence of such declarations is admissible not only to cori'oborate the testimony tending to establish the agency, but also, if the proper foundation be laid, to impeach him as a witness. Jones v. Harrell, supra.
3. Where it is…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jones v. HarrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Conyers v. FordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
3Cited by13 opinions
- Neill v. HillCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Bender v. Hill Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Dixon v. Sol Loeb Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Wielgorecki v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1975
- Lemcke v. Funk & Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1914
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.