Mauldin v. Stogner
| Decision Date | 13 September 1947 |
| Docket Number | 31662. |
| Citation | 44 S.E.2d 274,75 Ga.App. 663 |
| Parties | MAULDIN et al. v. STOGNER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Henry T. Mathews, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
R. B. Lambert, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. In every suit in this State there must be a legal entity as the real plaintiff and the real defendant, either a natural person, an artificial person, such as a corporation, or a quasi-artificial person, such as a partnership.
2. Where the name of the defendant in which the suit brought does not import a legal entity, but in fact it is a corporation or a partnership, such defect may be cured by an amendment alleging the legal status. Haynes v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 146 Ga. 832, 92 S.E. 648; Smith v. Commissioners of Glynn County, 198 Ga. 322, 31 S.E.2d 648; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Dalton Marble Works, 122 Ga. 774, 50 S.E. 978. And when a suit is brought against a defendant in a trade name, the petition is amendable by alleging and inserting the name of the individual doing business under that trade name. Schnore v. Joyner, 42 Ga.App. 688, 157 S.E. 353; Williamson v. Gentry, 44 Ga.App. 596, 162 S.E. 395; Hudgins Contracting Co. v. Redmond, 178 Ga. 317, 173 S.E. 135.
3. Where, as in the present case, an action is brought against the 'Atlanta Plating Works, having an office and place of business in Fulton County, Georgia,' as defendant, and the plaintiff's petition is challenged by demurrer on the ground that no party defendant is shown therein, the petition is amendable by alleging that 'defendants herein are H. R. Stogner, J. B. Stogner, doing business under the firm name of Atlanta Plating Works, having an office and place of business in Fulton County, Georgia,' thereby alleging that the defendant was a partnership, and, after the petition was thus amended, the court erred in sustaining the defendants' demurrer and in dismissing the action.
Judgment reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Kilgo, s. 40588
...Bottling Company, and not a part of the name itself.' Bell v. Ayers, 82 Ga.App. 92, 95, 60 S.E.2d 523, 525. See also Mauldin v. Stogner, 75 Ga.App. 663, 44 S.E.2d 274; Martin v. Waltman, 82 Ga.App. 375, 61 S.E.2d 214; Johnson & Johnson Construction Co. v. Pioneer Neon Supply Co., 96 Ga.App.......
-
Winters v. Lewis
...doing business under that name. Manistee Mill Co. v. Hobdy, 165 Ala. 411, 51 So. 871, 138 Am.St.Rep. 73 (1910); Mauldin v. Stogner, 75 Ga.App. 663, 44 S.E.2d 274 (1947). Since service was had on Winters for W W Feeders, and Winters was the individual doing business as W W Feeders, the amend......
-
Bell v. Ayers, 32971
...party making the same.' It follows that the court did not err in allowing the amendment. See also in this connection Mauldin v. Stogner, 75 Ga.App. 663, 44 S.E.2d 274; McCall v. Kliros, 76 Ga.App. 89, 45 S.E.2d Judgment affirmed. GARDNER and TOWNSEND, JJ., concur. ...
-
Thomas v. Home Credit Co., 46961
...and the amendment does not introduce a new party. Hudgins Contracting Co. v. Redmond, 178 Ga. 317(2), 173 S.E. 135; Mauldin v. Stogner, 75 Ga.App. 663(2), 44 S.E.2d 274; Moody A.F.B. Fed. Credit Union v. Kinard, 116 Ga.App. 163, 164, 156 S.E.2d 526.' John L. Hutcheson Memorial Tri-County Ho......