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: 904-383-7448Where, by the act or consent of parties or the act of a third person or of the law, one person is placed in such relation to another that he becomes interested for him or with him in any subject or property, he is prohibited from acquiring rights in that subject or property which are antagonistic to the person with whose interest he has become associated.
(Civil Code 1895, § 4031; Civil Code 1910, § 4628; Code 1933, § 37-708.)
- This section is derived from the decision in Larey v. Baker, 86 Ga. 468, 12 S.E. 684 (1890).
- For annual survey of law of wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary administration, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2004).
A confidential relationship exists where one party occupies a position of trust and confidence with respect to another. Such a relationship can exist between an executor representing an estate of a decedent, and a legatee or devisee of the estate represented in administration. Ringer v. Lockhart, 240 Ga. 82, 239 S.E.2d 349 (1977).
Where the fiduciary relationship of principal and agent existed between the petitioner and the defendant, the latter could not make advantage or profit for himself out of the relationship to the injury of his principal. Harrison v. Harrison, 214 Ga. 393, 105 S.E.2d 214 (1958).
Where a widow and named executrix under the will of a decedent, who is left a life estate in all of the property of the decedent, advises the sole nonresident remainderman named in the will that the father's estate would be handled fairly and that he would not have to worry about his father's estate, immediately, without actual notice to him applies for and obtains an uncontested year's support awarding to her all of the property of the decedent's estate, a question is presented, as to whether or not the year's support judgment was obtained by fraud. Ringer v. Lockhart, 240 Ga. 82, 239 S.E.2d 349 (1977).
Under the evidence as to the existence of a partnership between the petitioner and the defendant and their agreement to jointly purchase the land involved, and evidence that the petitioner paid one-half of the purchase money and trusted the defendant to close the deal and obtain a conveyance naming them both as grantees, the defendant could not obtain an interest in the land antagonistic to that of the petitioner; and where the defendant procured a deed, in his own name only, equity would annul the conveyance and decree title in the petitioner to his share. Crosby v. Rogers, 197 Ga. 616, 30 S.E.2d 248 (1944).
The relationship of principal and agent, being confidential and fiduciary in character, demands of the agent the utmost loyalty and good faith to his principal. Any breach of this good faith whereby the principal suffers any disadvantage and the agent reaps any benefit is a fraud of such nature as to preclude the agent from taking or retaining the benefit. Harrison v. Harrison, 214 Ga. 393, 105 S.E.2d 214 (1958).
- The principles of agency will not sustain grant of an injunction prohibiting competition after agency relationship is terminated. Pope v. Kem Mfg. Corp., 249 Ga. 868, 295 S.E.2d 290 (1982).
In absence of evidence of a restrictive covenant in employment contract, trial court erred in enjoining employee from soliciting business for himself from eight customers to whom he had sold similar products for his employer. Pope v. Kem Mfg. Corp., 249 Ga. 868, 295 S.E.2d 290 (1982).
- This Code section, when construed in conjunction with § 14-8-21, applies only to partnership rights acquired by one partner without the consent of the other partners. Thus, where all limited partners and the general partner acquired their rights at the same time by entering into an agreement, there was no breach of fiduciary duty. Consolidated Equities Corp. v. Bird, 195 Ga. App. 45, 392 S.E.2d 276 (1990).
- In order to be valid a post-employment covenant against competition by an employee who is not an officer or director must be in writing. Pope v. Kem Mfg. Corp., 249 Ga. 868, 295 S.E.2d 290 (1982).
Cited in Napier v. Adams, 166 Ga. 403, 143 S.E. 566 (1928); White v. Dotson, 41 Ga. App. 436, 153 S.E. 233 (1930); Thompson v. State, 47 Ga. App. 229, 170 S.E. 328 (1933); Blount v. Dean, 187 Ga. 494, 1 S.E.2d 653 (1939); Crosby v. Rogers, 197 Ga. 616, 30 S.E.2d 248 (1944); Smith v. Merck, 206 Ga. 361, 57 S.E.2d 326 (1950); Howard v. Lee, 208 Ga. 735, 69 S.E.2d 263 (1952); Johnson v. Hutchinson, 217 Ga. 489, 123 S.E.2d 551 (1962); Brogdon v. Purvis, 220 Ga. 28, 136 S.E.2d 719 (1964); Cole v. Cates, 113 Ga. App. 540, 149 S.E.2d 165 (1966); Westminster Properties, Inc. v. Atlanta Assocs., 250 Ga. 841, 301 S.E.2d 636 (1983); Hanson v. First State Bank & Trust Co., 259 Ga. 710, 385 S.E.2d 266 (1989).
- 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 20. 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §§ 15, 16.
- 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 48. 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 2.
- Right of insolvent to insure life for benefit of relatives, 34 A.L.R. 838.
Rights and remedies of original licensee or his estate, against one in fiduciary or confidential relation who acquires in his own name an occupational or business license, 144 A.L.R. 1013.
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-11-21
Citation: 718 S.E.2d 237, 290 Ga. 95, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3631, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 932
Snippet: partners, principal and agent, etc.” • OCGA § 23-2-59 — “Where, by the act or consent of parties or the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1989-10-19
Citation: 385 S.E.2d 266, 259 Ga. 710, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 427
Snippet: on its behalf. In this contention, see OCGA § 23-2-59, as follows: Where, by the act or consent of parties
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1983-04-19
Citation: 301 S.E.2d 636, 250 Ga. 841, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 657
Snippet: (Code Ann. § 75-201); see also OCGA §§ 23-2-58, 23-2-59 (Code Ann. §§ 37-707, 37-708). However, as between