Burns v. Royster Guano Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Burns v. Royster Guano Co.

100 S.E. 769, 24 Ga. App. 280, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 565

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 14, 1919

Docket10690

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 769 (Burns v. Royster Guano Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burns v. Royster Guano Co., 100 S.E. 769, 24 Ga. App. 280, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 565 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court (Proctor v. Royster Guano Co., 21 Ga. App. 617, 94 S. E. 821); and it is here now on exception to the dismissal of an affidavit of illegality, in which the execution issued upon the judgment in question was attacked on the ground that “it does not appear that the said E. S. Royster Guano Company is either an individual trading under said name, or is a copartnership composed of named individuals, nor is a corporation under the laws of any State of America,” etc. The petition shows that the suit proceeded in the name of “E. S. Royster Company, a corporation.” The judgment is regular, and the execution issued and proceeded in accordance with the judgment. There is no merit in the affidavit or illegality, and the court'properly dismissed it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, 0, J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Luke, J.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court (Proctor v. Royster Guano Co., 21 Ga. App. 617, 94 S. E. 821); and it is here now on exception to the dismissal of an affidavit of illegality, in which the execution issued upon the judgment in question was attacked on the ground that “it does not appear that the said E. S. Royster Guano Company is either an individual trading under said name, or is a copartnership composed of named individuals, nor is a corporation under the laws of any State of America,” etc. The petition shows that the suit proceeded in the name of “E. S. Royster Company, a corporation.” The judgment is regular, and the execution issued and proceeded in accordance with the judgment. There is no merit in the affidavit or illegality, and the court'properly dismissed it.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, 0, J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 769, 24 Ga. App. 280, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-v-royster-guano-co-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack