Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448An admission or representation made by any partner concerning partnership affairs within the scope of his authority is evidence against the partnership.
(Code 1981, §14-8-11, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1439, § 1.)
Note to Uniform Partnership Act This section states the extent to which partners' admissions and representations are evidence against the partnership.
Prior Georgia Law There were no comparable provisions. Prior O.C.G.A. § 14-8-61 (general scope of partners' authority) is generally consistent. This section accords with the general rule stated in Ward-Truitt Co. v. Nicholson, 23 Ga. App. 672, 99 S.E. 153 (1919).
Official UPA This section is the same as the official version except that the words "as conferred by this act" following "authority" have been deleted to clarify that the Act does not confer authority, but merely provides rules for determining what acts are authorized. This section is identical to the Florida version of § 11, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 620. (Harrison, 1977), and consistent with the Texas version of § 11, Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 6132b, § 11 (Vernon, 1970), which substitutes "defined" for "conferred."
Cross-References Authority of partners: §§ 14-8-9,14-8-10.1 and14-8-18(8). Binding effect of non-partner admissions: § 14-8-4(c) (law of agency applies).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910, § 3180, former Code 1933 and former Code Section 14-8-61, in effect prior to the 1984 repeal and reenactment of this chapter, are included in the annotations to this Code section.
- Statements or admissions made by a partner as such, and with reference to matters connected with the business, are binding upon the partnership. Ward-Truitt Co. v. Nicholson, 23 Ga. App. 672, 99 S.E. 153 (1919) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 3180).
- Testimony that an account made out against a partnership was presented to one of the members thereof, and that the partner acknowledged its correctness, is prima facie proof of the correctness of the account, and in case of a denial of account by the partnership is sufficient to make an issue of fact for the jury. Elliott v. National Union Radio Corp., 68 Ga. App. 873, 24 S.E.2d 705 (1943) (decided under former Code 1933).
- In a medical malpractice action, whether a nurse anesthetist was the agent of an anesthesiology partnership, whether the partnership was the agent of hospital, and whether there were any admissions in the medical records were for the jury to determine. Doctors Hosp. v. Bonner, 195 Ga. App. 152, 392 S.E.2d 897 (1990).
Cited in Stedry v. Mitchell, 201 Ga. App. 682, 411 S.E.2d 735 (1991).
- 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partnership, § 203 et seq.
- 68 C.J.S., Partnership, § 224.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2023-12-19
Snippet: was not corroborated as required by OCGA § 24-14-8.11 The record reflects that, at trial, Velazquez
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-05-03
Snippet: corroboration requirement currently found in OCGA § 24-14-8.11 The rule is apparently this – so long as the jury
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-06-21
Snippet: into the current Evidence Code as OCGA § 24-14-8). 11 Here, the jury was properly instructed