Heath v. Atlanta Beer Distributing Co.

Decision Date10 September 1937
Docket Number26241.
PartiesHEATH v. ATLANTA BEER DISTRIBUTING CO. et al.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied Oct. 7, 1937.

Syllabus by the Court.

The petition failed to set out a cause of action against the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, and the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the action as to that defendant.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Edgar E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Petition by Peter Heath, Sr., against the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company and others. To review a judgment dismissing the petition as to named defendant on demurrer, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

F. L Breen and S. T. Allen, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Etheridge Belser & Etheridge, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

SUTTON Judge.

Peter Heath, Sr., brought an action for damages for the willful killing of his son, Peter Heath, Jr., against Oran Dodd Ralph Owens, and the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, it being alleged that the deceased left no wife or children and that his mother predeceased him. The petition, among other things, substantially alleged that Oran Dodd was the sole owner of the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, a corporation which he was using as a guise and subterfuge for the purpose of dealing in intoxicating liquors; that Oran Dodd and this corporation had reason to believe that Walt Jones had stolen a number of cases of their intoxicating whisky, and this belief did engender in the heart of Dodd an ill will and hatred for Jones; that Dodd, acting for himself and the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, decided to recover in an unlawful manner the stolen whisky, and thereupon he called in his associate Ralph Owens for the purpose of assisting them in taking possession of said whisky wherever it might be found; that they did break into an unoccupied room on Whitehall street near the place of business of the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, where Dodd claimed they recovered the stolen liquor; that, while angry at Walt Jones on account of the supposed theft by Jones of said whisky, Dodd, for himself and the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, decided to assault and kill Jones for the theft of said whisky, and did continue to engage and associate Owens in the pursuit of Jones by means of an automobile along Whitehall street from the place of business of Dodd and the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company to and thence along Garnett street; that Dodd, acting for himself and the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company, conspired and confederated with Owens to join them and to aid and assist them in committing an unlawful and felonious assault on Jones for the fancied wrong committed on Dodd and the Atlanta Beer distributing Company; that Dodd and Owens, both armed with revolvers, set out to execute said unlawful intent; that, while aiding, abetting, and assisting each other in trying to feloniously kill Jones for revenge and hatred because of said fancied theft, they fired their pistols at him on Garnett street and in the direction of the sidewalk along said street where people were walking, and at this place, on August 1, 1935, while shooting at Jones, they willfully and wantonly shot and killed Peter Heath, Jr., an innocent bystander, without reason or justification. The Atlanta Beer Distributing Company filed general and special demurrers, which were sustained, and the action was dismissed as to that defendant. The plaintiff excepted to that judgment.

1. The question for determination is whether the petition set out a cause of action against the Atlanta Beer Distributing Company. While it is alleged that Oran Dodd was the sole stockholder and owner of this corporation, it still remains a separate entity and distinct person in law. "Every corporation is a person,-artificial it is true, but nevertheless a distinct legal entity. Neither a portion nor all of the natural persons who compose a corporation, or who own its stock and control its affairs are the corporation itself; and when a single individual composes a corporation, he is not himself the corporation. In such case the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT