O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-6-27 (2019)

Principal’s right of recovery

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A principal may follow his money deposited by an agent in the latter’s name and recover the same wherever found, unless the rights of innocent third persons shall have intervened.

History

Civil Code 1895, § 3005; Civil Code 1910, § 3577; Code 1933, § 4-208. History of Code section. This Code section is derived from the

decision in Spain v. W.H. Beach & Son, 52 Ga. 494 (1874).

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, § 247. C.J.S. 2A C.J.S., Agency, § 300 et seq. ALR. Liability of receiver in his official capacity for torts or negligence of receivership employees, 10 A.L.R. 1055. Deposit to individual account of checks or notes drawn or endorsed by agent or fiduciary, as charging bank with notice of

misappropriation, 57 A.L.R. 925; 64 A.L.R. 1404; 106 A.L.R. 836; 115 A.L.R. 648. Deposit by trustee of funds of separate trusts in a single bank account, 117 A.L.R. 179. When statute of limitations commences to run against action by principal to recover money or other property from agent, 141 A.L.R. 361.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2000–2000 · leading case: Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A. v. Reynolds, 533 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wachovia Bank of Georgia, N.A. v. Reynolds, 533 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “Wachovia also enumerates that the superior court erred in failing to charge that an agent may not dispute his principal’s title under OCGA § 10-6-27 and that an agent has no right of action on contracts made for his principal under OCGA § 10-6-82.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.