Henry v. Hoch
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) Counsel for the plaintiffs in error make the following statement in their brief; “The sole question presented in this appeal is whether Barnett was acting within the scope of his authority at the time of the accident in which Mrs. Hoch was injured, so as to render the defendant, Henry Motor Company, liable to Mrs. Hoch under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” In view of this statement and since no argument is advanced in their brief in support of the general grounds of the motion for new trial, the same are treated as abandoned.
The question hereinbefore…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Huff v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- Causey v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Scribner's Sons v. Mutual Building Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
- Blumberg v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. ArcherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- O. B. Hinson, Mrs. O. B. Hinson and Danny Hinson, a Minor, by and Through O. B. Hinson, as Next Friend v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
- Loomis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Mathis v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
- McGregor v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
- Pratt v. MeltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.