O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-6-64 (2019)

[Reserved] Agent may be witness; credibility; admissibility of agent’s declarations

✓ 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

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 2184; Code 1868, § 2180; Code 1873, § 2206; Code 1882, § 2206; Civil Code 1895, § 3034; Civil Code 1910, § 3606; Code 1933, § 4-315; repealed by Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 17/HB 24, effective January 1, 2013.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2011, p. 99, § 101/HB 24, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall apply to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after January 1, 2013.

ARTICLE 4 RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF AGENT AS TO THIRD PERSONS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1985–2009 · leading case: Williams v. City of Soc. Circle, 484 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Williams v. City of Soc. Circle, 484 S.E.2d 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 8× “Williams' attempts to establish that the admissions are admissible under OCGA §§ 24-3-33 and 10-6-64 are without merit. OCGA § 24-3-33 provides: "Admissions by an agent or attorney in fact, during the existence and in pursuance of his agency, shall be admissible against the…”
Hassell v. First Nat. Bank of Newton Cty, 461 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “Further, since the hearsay statement was the agent's recollection of past events, it was not admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, nor was it admissible as the agent's admission under OCGA § 24-3-33.”
Hagan v. Goody's Fam. Clothing, Inc., 490 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 10-6-64 states: The agent shall be a competent witness either for or against his principal.”
Quiktrip Corp. v. Childs, 469 S.E.2d 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Over Quiktrip’s hearsay objection, the trial court admitted this testimony as an admission by an agent. “ ‘(OCGA § 24-3-33) states: “The admissions by an agent or attorney in fact, during the existence, and in pursuance of his agency, shall be admissible against the principal.”
Sutton v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 504 S.E.2d 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 10-6-64; 24-3-33; Brooks v. Kroger Co.”
Wynn v. City of Warner Robins, 630 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “19 OCGA§ 10-6-64. 20 (Citation and punctuation omitted.”
Brooks v. Kroger Co., 390 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “’ [OCGA § 10-6-64] states: ‘The agent shall be a competent witness either for or against his principal.”
Sarantis v. Kroger Co., 411 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 10-6-64; Brooks v. Kroger Co., 194 Ga.”
Bakery Servs., Inc. v. Thornton Chevrolet, Inc., 479 S.E.2d 363 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Thornton, the corporation’s president, merely stated that he had a conversation with two Thornton Chevrolet employees and that as a result of that conversation Thornton Chevrolet would have informed Cook that it would repair the Suburban. As is shown by Thornton’s earlier…”
Barfield v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., 492 S.E.2d 688 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “574, 576 (3) ( 327 SE2d 546 ) *845 (1985); OCGA §§ 10-6-64; 24-3-33. Decided October 1, 1997 Reconsideration denied October 17, 1997.”
HCP III Woodstock, Inc. v. Healthcare Servs. Grp., Inc., 562 S.E.2d 225 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “” And, under OCGA § 10-6-64: “The agent shall be a competent witness either for or against his principal.”
Uniflex Corp. v. Saxon, 402 S.E.2d 67 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “However, this Code section must be construed together with OCGA § 10-6-64, which states an agent’s declarations shall not be admissible against the principal unless they were part of the res gestae of the transaction.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.