Smith v. Holbrook, Glazier & Co.
Supreme Court of Georgia
Appeal. Before Judge Sweat. "Ware superior court. November term, 1895. Tbe plaintiffs, of Hartford, Conn., sued "W. J. Smith ujDon an .account for shoes. The court directed a verdict in their favor, and overruled defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal. Before Judge Sweat. "Ware superior court. November term, 1895. Tbe plaintiffs, of Hartford, Conn., sued "W. J. Smith ujDon an .account for shoes. The court directed a verdict in their favor, and overruled defendant’s motion for a new trial. In addition to the plea of not indebted, he set up that the bill of goods sued for was ordered by a clerk in his store without his knowledge or authority, and before a partnership was formed between him and one Kimbrough; and before said goods were shipped to defendant, he countermanded said order, but the goods were shipped and received at the…
1Opinion of the CourtLumpkin, J.
1. Where a clerk, who was left in general charge of a mercantile establishment (luring the absence of the proprietor, ordered goods appropriate to the conduct of the business which were received’ and placed in stock, and the proprietor, upon .ascertaining these facts, did not, within a reasonable time, countermand the order and offer 'to return the goods, he was bound to pay for the same, although in the first instance the clerk may have transcended his authority in ordering the goods, it appearing that hie want of authority was unknown to the seller.
2. Under the pleading act of 1893, a mere…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Mendel v. Converse & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
- Hicks v. HamiltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- American Oil Co. v. McCluskeyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
- De Soto Plantation Co. v. HammettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.