TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. Allison

Williams v. Allison, 74 S.E. 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 2, 1912
Docket
No. 3804
Judges
Hill
Citations
74 S.E. 44210 Ga. App. 8401912 Ga. App. LEXIS 724
Cited by 7
Summary
Complaint; from city court of Americus — Judge Hixon.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hill

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hill, C. J.

1. The courts will take judicial cognizance of the computation of time, and of what days of the month are Sundays. Dorough v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 118 Ga. 178 ( 45 S. E. 22 ).

2. A contract executed on Sunday, and which is connected with or relates to the business or work of the ordinary calling of one of the parties to the contract, and does not relate to work of necessity or charity, is invalid and can not be enforced. Penal Code (1910), § 416; Thompson v. Williams, 9 Ga. App. 367 ( 71 S. E. 678 ).; McAuliffe v. Vaughan, 135 Ga. 852 ( 70 S. E. 322 , 33 L. R. A (N. S.) 255).

3. A contract made by the owner of real estate and personal property with a real-estate agent, placing the property in the hands of the agent to be sold, and fixing the commission to be paid to him and the terms of the sale, is a contract in connection with the ordinary calling or business of the real-estate agent, and, if executed on the Sabbath day, can not be enforced by the agent, although the contract may not have been made in the prosecution of the ordinary business or calling of the owner of the property. If the contract is executed in the prosecution of the ordinary business of either party thereto, and'is executed on Sunday, it is invalid. Judgment reversed. ■

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1919: 11923: 11926: 11932: 11943: 11958: 11967: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Bernhardt v. Federal Terra Cotta Co.101 S.E. 588 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
  2. Thacker v. Morris26 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 1943)
  3. Farm Products Co. v. Eubanks116 S.E. 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
  4. Browne v. Snipes102 S.E.2d 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
  5. Sprayberry v. Wright159 S.E.2d 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  6. Town of Bartow v. Smith132 S.E. 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)

Most recent

  1. Sprayberry v. Wright159 S.E.2d 102 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)
  2. Browne v. Snipes102 S.E.2d 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
  3. Thacker v. Morris26 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 1943)
  4. Cook v. Blain162 S.E. 658 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
  5. Town of Bartow v. Smith132 S.E. 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926)
  6. Farm Products Co. v. Eubanks116 S.E. 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
McAuliffe v. Vaughan, 70 S.E. 322 (Ga. 1911) 21
Dorough v. Equitable Mortg. Co., 45 S.E. 22 (Ga. 1903) 14
Thompson v. Wilkinson, 71 S.E. 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911) 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list