Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448An agent may not dispute his principal's title, except in such cases where legal proceedings, at the instance of others, shall have been commenced against him.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2166; Code 1868, § 2162; Code 1873, § 2188; Code 1882, § 2188; Civil Code 1895, § 3012; Civil Code 1910, § 3584; Code 1933, § 4-206.)
- One who undertakes to act as the agent of another cannot dispute the right or title of the agent's principal in and to the subject of the agency. Morgan v. Morgan, 160 Ga. 472, 128 S.E. 674 (1925).
- If there was an agreement between J and B that the latter should hold a certificate to secure a debt due B by J, and if J, for the purpose of securing such debt, delivered the certificate to B and the latter delivered the certificate to L for safekeeping, L could not defeat a recovery of the certificate by B on the ground that there was no written assignment of the certificate by J to B. Loveless v. Bridges, 136 Ga. 338, 71 S.E. 166 (1911).
- If a person signs the name of another to a note, purportedly as a joint obligor, one will be estopped to assert, in an action thereon by an innocent holder for value, that one did not have the authority to sign the name of such other party to the note. Williams v. Atlanta Nat'l Bank, 31 Ga. App. 212, 120 S.E. 658 (1923).
- If the authorities in charge of the finances of a county borrowed money for county purposes without authority of law, and the money thus unlawfully borrowed was received by the county treasurer as county funds and kept with the lawful money of the county, one was estopped from denying that one held this borrowed money by virtue of one's office as treasurer, and was liable for the same upon one's official bond. Mason v. Commissioners of Rds. & Revenues, 104 Ga. 35, 30 S.E. 513 (1898).
- Declarations of an agent, who is in possession of realty merely to manage and care for the realty, are not admissible in evidence against the principal to disparage the principal's title. Sweeney v. Sweeney, 119 Ga. 76, 46 S.E. 76, 100 Am. St. R. 159 (1903).
- While an agent cannot dispute one's principal's title except in certain instances, yet if one is in possession of cattle merely by virtue of an employment by an officer of the corporation, one would not because of these facts be estopped from defending upon the ground that the title was in the company. Paschal v. Godley, 34 Ga. App. 321, 129 S.E. 565 (1925).
- One in possession of a promissory note as agent for another is not cut off from restoring the note to one's principal though a demand upon one for the note has been made by another claimant. Wando Phosphate Co. v. Parker, 93 Ga. 414, 21 S.E. 53 (1893).
- When dispute arises as to right of agent or principal to possession of property in hands of agent, title to that property must, of necessity, be decided. Scroggins v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy (In re Kaleidoscope, Inc.), 15 Bankr. 232 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 25 Bankr. 729 (N.D. Ga. 1982).
Cited in Dunlop Tire & Rubber Co. v. White, 45 Ga. App. 268, 164 S.E. 414 (1932); Courts v. Jones, 61 Ga. App. 874, 8 S.E.2d 178 (1940); Light v. Smith, 86 Ga. App. 591, 71 S.E.2d 844 (1952); Babb v. Kersh, 92 Ga. App. 346, 88 S.E. 432 (1955); Giddens Constr. Co. v. Fickling & Walker Co., 188 Ga. App. 558, 373 S.E.2d 792 (1988).
- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, § 198 et seq.
- 2A C.J.S., Agency, § 267.
- Liability of one who signs commercial paper in blank to be used for his own benefit where it is wrongfully used by an agent or employee, 43 A.L.R. 198.
No results found for Georgia Code 10-6-26.