W. Union Tel. Co. v. Mobley, 152 S.E. 484 (Ga. 1930). · Go Syfert
Search
W. Union Tel. Co. v. Mobley, 152 S.E. 484 (Ga. 1930). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: New Star Realty, Inc. v. Jungang Pri USA, LLC (gactapp, 2018-06-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1934 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1934 1980 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New Star Realty, Inc. v. Jungang Pri USA, LLC
Ga. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Yeo thus was a dual agent of Jungang and New Star Georgia, and “the knowledge of a dual agent is imputable to both principals.” Carlton v. Moultrie Banking Co., 170 Ga. 185, 186 (3) ( 152 SE 215 ) (1930) (syllabus by court).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capricorn Systems, Inc. v. Pednekar
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Carlton v. Moultrie Banking Co., 170 Ga. 185, 196-197 ( 152 SE 215 ) (1930).
cited Cited "see" American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. E A Technical Services, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Carlton v. Moultrie Banking Co., 170 Ga. 185 (3) ( 152 SE 215 ) (1930) (knowledge of a dual agent is imputable to both principals).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Turner Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. v. Werco, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Carlton v. Moultrie Banking Co., 170 Ga. 185 ( 152 SE 215 ) (1930); Williams v. Claussen-Lawrence Constr.
Western Union Telegraph Company
v.
Mobley, superintendent of banks
No. 7085.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb 22, 1930.
152 S.E. 484
Howell, Heyman & Bolding and Herman Heyman, for plaintiff., O. A. Park, O. N. Davie, and J. P. Kemp, for defendants.
Russell.
Published
Russell, C. J.

1. In the present instance the insolvent bank was placed in the hands of the superintendent of banks on May 6, 1927, which was prior to the passage of the amendatory act of 1927 (Ga. L. .1927, pp. 195, 199) ; and as a consequence the distribution of the funds of the bank by the superintendent was governed by the provisions of the act of 1925, which were of force at the time that the bank was taken over by the superintendent.

2. Under the allegations of the petition and the agreed statement of facts, the petitioner was not entitled to either equitable or conventional subrogation.

3. The judge of the superior court, to whom the case was submitted for determination upon the law and facts without the intei'vention of a jury, did not err in holding that all items of the plaintiff’s claim should be classed as contractual liabilities and entitled to payment under subsection 5 of section 19 of article 7 of the banking act of 1925. (Ga. L. 1925, pp. 119, 129).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.