Baxley v. Baxley, 51 S.E. 591 (Ga. 1905). · Go Syfert
Search
Baxley v. Baxley, 51 S.E. 591 (Ga. 1905). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
21 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Saunders, Stuckey & Mullis, Inc. (gactapp, 1994-07-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1907 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1907 1966 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Saunders, Stuckey & Mullis, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
See Warthen v. Moore, 258 Ga. 198, 199 ( 366 SE2d 666 ); Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 123 Ga. 686, 690 ( 51 SE 582 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Willcox v. Cobb
Ga. Ct. App. · 1938 · confidence medium
D. 761 ), Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 167 ( 46 S. E. 67 ), Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 123 Ga. 686, 690 ( 51 S. E. 582 , 3 Ann.
discussed Cited "see" Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet (2×)
Ga. · 1940 · signal: see · confidence high
See Van Dyke v. Van Dyke , 123 Ga. 686 , 690 ( 51 S.E. 582 , 3 Ann.
discussed Cited "see" Hollingsworth v. Georgia Fruit Growers Inc.
Ga. · 1938 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord ingly, a lease under seal, executed by an agent as lessee in his individual name, and which does not purport to be executed on behalf of the principal, is not binding upon the latter, although it appears from extrinsic evidence that the lessee was the general agent to conduct a business for his principal, and that the premises were leased to be used in such business.” See also Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 123 Ga. 686 ( 51 S. E. 582 , 3 Ann.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Coastal Service, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1961 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Van Dyke v. Van Dyke, 123 Ga. 686 ( 51 S. E. 582 , 3 Ann.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baxley
v.
Baxley
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Aug 3, 1905.
51 S.E. 591
Thomas & Parker, for plaintiff., W. W. Bennett and H. J. Holton, for defendants.
Candler.
Published
Candler, J.

The plaintiff in error not having insisted on any of the grounds of his motion for a new trial except those which complain that the court erred in charging on the subject of notice in tbe plaintiff of the defendants’ deed, and it appearing that the charges complained of stated sound principles of law and were warranted by the evidence, the judgment overruling the motion will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

AU the Justices concur, except Simmons, O. J., absent.