Georgia Fertilizer Co. v. Foster
| Decision Date | 05 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | 19179. |
| Citation | 149 S.E. 812,40 Ga.App. 436 |
| Parties | GEORGIA FERTILIZER CO. v. FOSTER. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where defendant denied generally allegation in petition which alleged merely that plaintiff was owner of choses in action sued on, and plaintiff afterwards amended petition by alleging assignment of choses in action executed by named corporation which was original owner to named assignees who afterwards assigned choses to plaintiff, plea by defendant was sufficient to authorize evidence denying validity of first assignment as alleged in amendment on ground that corporate charter of assignor had expired before making assignment.
Rule estopping person who has dealt with corporation from denying its corporate existence has reference only to denial that when he dealt with corporation it was a corporation, and has no reference to denial of corporate existence at later time.
Where chose in action sued on arose out of contract which defendant had with corporation purporting to be assignor of chose in action, defendant was not estopped from asserting that at later date charter of corporation had expired and that corporation afterwards could not execute valid assignment of chose in action.
Where plaintiff's prima facie case was overcome by evidence introduced by defendant and court held case under advisement about six weeks before rendering judgment and did not enter judgment until some time after notifying defendant's counsel what the judgment would be, and plaintiff made no motion for nonsuit or to dismiss case before judgment was rendered, Court of Appeals will affirm judgment and will refuse to direct that it be modified and that nonsuit be entered.
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.
1. Since a mere general denial, in a plea sworn to by a defendant, of a paragraph in a plaintiff's 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial