(DOWNLOAD) "Bowman v. Fuller" by Court of Appeals of Georgia # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bowman v. Fuller
- Author : Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Release Date : January 12, 1951
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 53 KB
Description
Elbert T. Fuller brought suit against Ralph M. Bowman, doing business as the Bowman Transportation Company, in the Civil Court of Fulton County, attaching to the petition a lease agreement between the parties under which the defendant leased from the plaintiff a tractor-trailer combination to be used in the transportation of freight, the plaintiff lessor agreeing to furnish drivers and helpers for the operation of the equipment, which employees ""shall be deemed to be in the employ of the party of the first part for the duration of this lease,"" and to furnish all tires, gas, oil, grease, license tags and plates, upkeep and repairs and to bear the expense thereof. The defendant lessee was to have direct supervision over all drivers and helpers so furnished, with authority to discharge at any time for justifiable cause, to pay the lessor ""for the use of said truck and/or trailer for transportation of personal property with said equipment Rome, Georgia to Opa Locka, Florida, and return . . . Said equipment to be returned to the party of the second part at the expiration of this agreement in good condition, the usual wear and tear of said equipment excepted."" The petition alleged that the defendant had breached the contract by failing to return the trailer and sued for its value plus hire. The lease was signed, ""Bowman Transportation Company, R. L. Moore, Party of the First Part."" The defendant answered denying the lease was ever signed by any employee of his or any one authorized to enter into the same on his behalf, and that the signature thereon was not the signature of R. L. Moore or of any person authorized to act for the defendant, and alleging that the equipment involved in the purported lease did not operate over the route defendant was lawfully authorized to follow under his Interstate Commerce Commission franchise. A special plea of non est factum was also filed. The plaintiff then amended, alleging that E. L. Moore was the defendant's agent authorized to enter into contracts in his behalf; that the name, ""R. L. Moore"" was signed by S.J. Morris Motor Express Inc., that for a period of months immediately prior to, and on the day the lease was signed, the defendant authorized and directed S.J. Morris Motor Express Inc. to enter into contracts in his behalf and to sign the defendant's name or that of his authorized agents thereto; that over this period of time S.J. Morris Motor Express Inc. did sign defendant's name or that of his agent to such contracts, which contracts were uniformly authorized and subsequently ratified by the defendant; that the name ""R. L. Moore"" was signed by S.J. Morris Motor Express Inc. with the knowledge, authority and consent of the defendant, and acting as the defendant's agent within the scope of its authority; that the act of S.J. Morris Express Inc. in so doing was the act of the defendant, and that, pursuant to the contract, the defendant accepted delivery of the property and thereby ratified the act of its agent, S.J. Morris Motor Express Inc. in signing the contract in its behalf. The defendant thereafter amended his answer as follows: ""Even had there been a valid contract . . . same would be illegal and contrary to law and actually plaintiff was running his own equipment with his own employees in the handling of interstate commerce when he did not have any right in law to do so, and therefore the plaintiff cannot recover upon said purported contract, even if it had been executed by or for defendant, which it was not.""