Prater v. Larabee Flour Mills Co Inc, 10705.

• Decision Date: 10 April 1935
• Docket Number: No. 10705.,10705.
• Citation: 180 S.E. 235,180 Ga. 581
• Parties: PRATER. v. LARABEE FLOUR MILLS CO, Inc.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

180 Ga. 581

180 S.E. 235

PRATER.

v.LARABEE FLOUR MILLS CO, Inc.

No. 10705.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 10, 1935.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1935.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Municipal Court of Atlanta; Ralph McClelland, Judge.

Suit by A. J. Prater, doing business as A. J. Prater & Co., against the Larabee Flour Mills Company, Incorporated. To review a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

J. Hugh Rogers and J. K. Jordan, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hendrix & Buchanan and Joseph M. Clark, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GILBERT, Justice.

A. J. Prater, doing business as Ad J. Prater & Co., filed suit against Larabee Flour Mills Company, Incorporated, for commissions alleged to be due him by the defendant. The defendant by amendment to its answer pleaded that the plaintiff had not complied with the Trade-Name Act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233), and was not entitled to maintain his suit. The plaintiff objected to the amendment, pn the grounds that the act did not apply to him, because he was operating only in his real name; and that the act was in violation of article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution of Georgia. After hearing evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted. Held:

1. The act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233) is not violative of article 3, § 7, par. 8, of the Constitution of Georgia.

2. The name "A. J. Prater & Company" as used by the plaintiff in the conduct of his business was a trade-name in contemplation of the act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233); and the plaintiff, not having complied with the provisions of that act by filing the necessary affidavit setting forth the name and address of the true owner, was not entitled to bring the suit against the defendant. The court did not err in granting a nonsuit. Dunn & McCarthy, Inc., v. Pinkston, 179 Ga. 31, 175 S. E. 4.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.