Williamson v. Gentry

• Decision Date: 18 January 1932
• Docket Number: No. 21307.,21307.
• Citation: 162 S.E. 395,44 Ga.App. 596
• Parties: WILLIAMSON. v. GENTRY.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

44 Ga.App. 596

162 S.E. 395

WILLIAMSON.

v.GENTRY.

No. 21307.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Jan. 18, 1932.

Error from City Court of Eastman; C. J. Franklin, Judge.

Action by C. A. Gentry against J. G. Williamson. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

J. H. Milner, of Eastman, for plaintiff in error.

W. S. Mann, of McRae, and C. W. Atwill, of Eastman, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, J.

1. A person doing business under a trade-name may bring suit in that name as his trade-name. This is true, although the trade-name may be that of a corporation in which the person doing business in that name owns all the capital stock.

2. A motion for a continuance upon the ground of surprise, made upon the allowance of an amendment to the petition, is defective, where it is not at the time expressly represented to the court that such surprise is "not claimed for the purpose of delay." Civil Code 1910, § 5714; Hoffman v. Franklin Motor Car Co., 32 Ga. App. 229 (2), 122 S. E. 896; Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ga. 658 (1), 46 S. E. 867.

3. The evidence showed conclusively and without dispute that the alleged indebtedness of the defendant was due to the plaintiff named in the petition, and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

JENKINS, P. J., and BELL, J., concur.