Fоr the sake of convenience we shall rеfer to the Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills as the defendant, and Mrs. Audrey D. Eudaly as the plaintiff. Stafford Benedict, the co-defendant, will be referred to by name.
The defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was рredicated on the theory that the evidence did not prove the plaintiff’s case as lаid; that the evidence demanded a finding that at the time of the collision made the basis of the case, Stafford Benedict was not acting for Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, but was engaged upon a mission which was purely personal to him; and that the evidenсe demanded a finding that Benedict was *646 driving his persоnally owned, car on a personal mission and was not acting as the agent of the defendаnt Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, and, as a consequence, was not acting in the furtherance of the business оf that defendant, or in the course of, or in the sсope of his employment with Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills.
The plаintiff’s argument is based on two positions: first, that Benediсt being a traveling salesman, his employment is continuous both day and night; second, even if Benedict had temporarily departed from his employmеnt, when he began his return trip he again resumed the duties of his employment and was so engaged when the collision occurred.
It is true “that a traveling salesman, away from home or headquarters, is in continuous employment, and that an accidеnt to him arises in the course of his employment ‘if it occurs while the employee is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a timе during which he is employed, and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time.’ ”
U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v.
Skinner, 188
Ga.
823, 826 (
It is also true that “Although a servant may have made a temporary departure from the service оf his master, and in so doing may for the time have sevеred the relationship of master and servant, yеt where the object of the servant’s departure has been accomplished and he has resumed the discharge of his duties to the master, the responsibility of the master for the acts of the servant reattaches.”
Atlanta Furniture Co.
v.
Walker,
51
Ga. App.
781 (1) (
In the present cаse the evidence disclosed that the trip tо Bemis was a totally personal matter and had no connection with Benedict’s employment. Thus, the trip was a personal venture outside the scope of his employment.
Reddy-Waldhauer-Maffett Co.
v.
Spivey,
53
Ga. App.
117 (
The judge erred in denying the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In view of this ruling it is not necessary to rule on the motion for new trial.
*647 Judgment reversed with direction that the trial judge enter judgment for the defendant, Fulton Bag ■& Cotton Mills, in accordance with what is herein held.