green
Positive treatment
11.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1913 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1913
1969
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JOHNSON v. AVIS RENT a CAR SYSTEM, LLC (Two Cases)
Cf. Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 (2) ( 77 SE 618 ) (1913) (discussing the applicability of “the rules of law touching master and servant and the liability of the former for the act of the latter” to a claim against the owner of an automobile for damages on account of an injury caused by the vehicle while driven by his employee in the scope of his employment). 39 believe that the instant cases at the very least can be distinguished from that “venerable line of authority.”26 At any rate, those Court of Appeals cases are not binding on this Court, and it is time to reaffirm the pr…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Piedmont Hospital, Inc. v. Palladino
(2×)
Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511-512 (3), 77 S.E. 618 (1913).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Aldrich Co.
“In American Oil Co. v. McCluskey, 119 Ga. App. 475, 477 ( 167 SE2d 711 ), citing Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 SE 618 ) (1913), this court stated: ‘ “. . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Business MacHines, Inc. v. Bozardt
In American Oil Co. v. McCluskey, 119 Ga. App. 475, 477 ( 167 SE2d 711 ), citing Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 SE 618 ) (1913), this court stated: “ ‘... [T]he general rule is that a master is liable for the tort of his servant, whether negligent or voluntary, if done by his command or in the prosecution and scope of his business. [Cit.] The expressions, “in the scope of his business,” or “in the scope of his employment,” or similar words, have sometimes been given too narrow a meaning.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dixon v. Phillips
(2×)
Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 512 ( 77 SE 618 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Oil Co. v. McCluskey
(2×)
In Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 SE 618 ), it is held: "Omitting the fellow-servant doctrine, the general rule is that a master is liable for the tort of his servant, whether negligent *478 or voluntary, if done by his command or in the prosecution and scope of his business.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marketing Sales Industries of Georgia, Inc. v. Roberts
Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 512 ( 77 SE 618 ); Wilson v. Quick-Tire Service, 32 Ga. App. 310, 311 ( 123 SE 733 ); Corum v. Edwards-Warren Tire Co., 110 Ga. App. 33 (1) ( 137 SE2d 738 ); Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Co., 113 Ga. App. 528, 529 ( 148 SE2d 919 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Dixie Ohio Express, Inc.
And see Prince v. Brickell, 87 Ga. App. 697, 700 ( 75 SE2d 288 ); Fielder v. Davidson, 139 Ga. 509, 511 (3) ( 77 SE 618 ); Planters Cotton-Oil Co. v. Baker, 181 Ga. 161 ( 181 SE 671 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sparks v. Buffalo Cab Company, Inc.
“For a tort committed by the servant entirely disconnected from the service or business of the master, the latter is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, although it may occur during the general term of the servant’s employment.” Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 512 ( 77 SE 618 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bell v. Washam
Counsel for the defendant in error state in their brief that the question which elicited the statement as to agency was not designed “to prove agency but was a direct question to show ownership,” and then proceeds to argue that under Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 513 ( 77 S. E. 618 ), ownership being here shown liability was established against the defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Digsby v. Carroll Baking Co.
A master rarely commands a servant to be negligent, or employs him with the expectation that, he will commit a negligent or wilful tort; but if the act is done in the prosecution of the master’s business, that is, if the servant is at the time engaged in serving the master, the latter will be liable.” Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 S. E. 618 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cowart v. Jordan
Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 512 ( 77 S. E. 618 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Southern Grocery Stores Inc. v. Herring
But for a tort committed by the servant entirely disconnected from the service or businessi of the master, the latter is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, although it may occur during the general term of the servant’s employment.” Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 (3) (77 S. E. 618 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jump v. Anderson
In Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 S. E. 618 ), it was said: “The expressions, ‘in the scope of his business,’ or ‘in the scope of his employment,’ or similar words, have sometimes been given too narrow a meaning.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Security Co. v. Cook
In Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 S. E. 618 ), it was said: “Omitting the fellow-servant doctrine, the general rule is that a master is liable for the tort of his servant, whether negligent or voluntary, if done by his command or in the prosecution and scope of his business.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Personal Finance Co. v. Whiting
See, in this connection, Toole Co. v. Ellis, 5 Ga. App. 271 (1) ; Thompson v. Wright, 109 Ga. 466 ; Savannah Electric Co. v. Wheeler, 128 Ga. 550 (2) ; Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 (par. 3) ; Exposition Cotton Mills v. Sanders, 143 Ga. 593; Atlanta Hub.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Greeson v. Bailey
In Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 (supra), Mr. Justice Lumpkin discussed at some length certain phases of the present question.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Massachusetts Cotton Mills v. Byrd
But for a tort committed by the servant entirely disconnected from the service or business of the master, the latter is not responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, although it may occur during the general term of the servant’s employment.” Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509, 511 ( 77 S. E. 618 ), 2 Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, 1384, lays down the law as follows: “The true test of whether or not a servant is acting within the scope of his employment is whether the servant, at the time of the injury complained of, is performing a service for the master in furthe…
discussed
Cited "see"
Davis Gas Co. v. Powell
See generally Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 (5) ( 77 SE 618 ); Wilson v. Quick Tire Service, 32 Ga. App. 310 (123 SE 733); Price v. Star Service & Petroleum Corp., 119 Ga. App. 171 ( 166 SE2d 593 ); Dawson Chevrolet Co. v. Ford, 47 Ga. App. 312 (170 SE 306); Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffett Co. v. Spivey, 53 Ga. App. 117 (1) ( 185 SE 147 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
DuPree v. Babcock
(2×)
See Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 ( 77 S. E. 618 ).” Andrews v. Norvell, 65 Ga. App. 241, 243 ( 15 S. E. 2d 808 ).
cited
Cited "see"
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Windham
Watkins v. Brown, 14 Ga.App. 99 , 80 S.E. 212 ; see Fielder v. Davison, 139 Ga. 509 , 77 S.E. 618 ; see Maryland Casualty Co. v. Ronan et al., 2 Cir., 37 F.2d 449 , 72 A.L.R. 1360 .
cited
Cited "see"
Atlanta Hub Co. v. Jones
See Fielder v. Davison, supra; Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Dowling, 43 Ga. App. 549, 552 ( 159 S. E. 609 ). 4.
Chattooga County
v.
Megginson
v.
Megginson
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Feb 26, 1913.
Wesley Shropshire and Maddox £ Doyal, for plaintiff., J. M. Bellah, for defendant.
Hill.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Moneys received from tlie sale of bonds lawfully issued by a county for the erection of a court-house are “county funds” within the meaning of the Civil Code, ,§ 588. See Aaron v. German, 114 Ga. 587 (40 S. E. 713).
(а) It follows that, for receiving and paying out funds thus acquired by the county, the county treasurer is entitled, within the limit therein specified, to the commissions allowed him by that section.
(б) He is also, for making a disbursement of county funds in paying accrued interest on the bonds, entitled to commissions under the same section.
Judgment affirmed.