Ga. Fertilizer Co v. Foster, (No. 19179.)

• Decision Date: 05 October 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 19179.)
• Citation: 149 S.E. 812,40 Ga.App. 436
• Parties: GEORGIA FERTILIZER CO. v. FOSTER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

40 Ga.App. 436

149 S.E. 812

GEORGIA FERTILIZER CO.

v.FOSTER.

(No. 19179.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Oct. 5, 1929.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from City Court of Valdosta; J. G. Cranford, Judge.

Action by the Georgia Fertilizer Company against O. B. Foster. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Branch & Snow, of Quitman, for plaintiff in error.

Franklin & Langdale and H. C. Eberhardt, all of Valdosta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, J. [1] 1. Since a mere general denial, in a plea sworn to by a defendant, of a paragraph in a plaintiffs petition in which the plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of choses in action sued on, and that they had been transferred by a written assignment executed by a named corporation, who was their original owner, to named assignees, who afterwards, by a written assignment, had assigned them to the plaintiff, would be a sufficient denial, as required In section 4299 of the Civil Code of 1910, of the genuineness of the assignment as was held in Carter v. Haralson, 146 Ga. 282(3), 91 S. E. 88; and since an amendment to a. petition requires no plea of denial by the defendant, and can be met by the introduction of evidence by the defendant, in the absence of a plea denying the allegations in the amendment, a plea by the defendant denying generally an allegation in the petition which alleges merely that the plaintiff was the holder and owner of the choses in action sued on, where the plaintiff has afterwards amended the petition by elaborating upon this allegation and alleging that the choses in action had been transferred by a written assignment executed by a named corporation, which was their original owner, to named assignees, who afterwards by a written assignment had assigned them to the plaintiff, is sufficient, in the absence of other pleadings, to authorize the introduction of evidence offered by the defendant tending to deny the validity of the first assignment as alleged in the amendment to the petition, upon the ground that the corporate charter of the assignor had expired before the making of such assignment. Notwithstanding the absence of a special plea denying the validity of the assignment, evidence that the assignment was invalid for the reasons stated was relevant to the issues made by the pleadings, and the court did not err in admitting it.

2. The rule which estops a person who has dealt with a corporation from denying its corporate...