green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1917 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1917
1971
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Miller Bros. Farms, Inc.
See Griggs v. Dodson, 223 Ga. 164 (2) ( 154 SE2d 252 ) (1967); Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros., 19 Ga. App. 21, 22 (5) ( 90 SE 1037 ) (1916). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Underwood
Code, § 4-303; Whitley v. James, 121 Ga. 521 (4) ( 49 S. E. 600 ); Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros., 19 Ga. App. 21, 22 (5) ( 90 S. E. 1037 ); Mendel v. Converse & Co., 30 Ga. App. 549, 556 (30) ( 118 S. E. 586 ). (a) While there was no proof in this case of any written authority from the defendant Linder to the defendant Underwood to act as his agent in the sale of Linder’s interest in the land involved to the plaintiff, whether Linder’s conduct, on being informed of the sale contract, ratified it by admitting such authority in Underwood or by asquiescing in the plaintiff’s right to pr…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Meeks v. Adams Louisiana Co.
Brooke & Co. v. Cunningham Bros., 19 Ga.App. 21, 22 (5), 90 S.E. 1037 ; Mendel v. Converse & Co., 30 Ga.App. 549, 556 (30) 118 S.E. 586 .
cited
Cited "see"
Columbian Peanut Co. v. Pope
See Brooke v. Cunningham, 19 Ga. App. 21 (2) ( 90 S. E. 1037 ); Central Railroad &c.
cited
Cited "see"
Lott-Lewis Co. v. Bingham-Hewett Grain Co.
See, in this connection, Brooke v. Cunningham, 19 Ga. App. 21 (4) (90 S. E. 1037); Herbener v. Cuero Cotton Oil & Mfg.
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
v.
Savage
v.
Savage
7513.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Nov 22, 1916.
Hardeman, Jones, Parle & Johnston, for plaintiffs in error., Robert L. Berner, contra.
Atlanta, Designated, Hill, Instead, Iíodges, Who.
Published
The exceptions to extracts from the charge of the court, when considered in connection with the entire instructions, are without merit. In the instructions given, all the material issues made by the pleading and the evidence were covered clearly and correctly, and without injury to any contention of the defendant. The record makes no new or interesting question of law, and the verdict—the second for the plaintiff— was moderate and supported by the evidence. There was no error in refusing another trial. Judgment affirmed.