Coleman v. Southern Exchange Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coleman v. Southern Exchange Bank

126 S.E. 858, 33 Ga. App. 542, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 581

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1925

Docket15978

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E. 858 (Coleman v. Southern Exchange Bank) 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

Coleman v. Southern Exchange Bank, 126 S.E. 858, 33 Ga. App. 542, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 581 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

The Southern Exchange Bank brought suit on a note against the Coleman Motor Company, alleging that it [543]*543was a firm composed of R. C. and A. T. Coleman. The defendants filed a plea in which they denied any liability as a firm, and alleged that “the Coleman Motor Company, the signer of the note sited upon, was a duly organized and chartered corporation under the laws of Georgia, and received all the benefits of the consideration of the note sued upon, [of] all of which the plaintiff had notice.” To this plea no demurrer was filed. The evidence as to whether the note was that of the firm, which for a while did business as the Coleman Motor Company, or was the 'obligation of the corporation of the same name which succeeded the partnership, and as to whether the bank had notice of the dissolution of the firm, was in sharp and direct conflict, and the judge erred in not submitting, these issues of fact to a jury.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Buhe, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

The Southern Exchange Bank brought suit on a note against the Coleman Motor Company, alleging that it [543]*543was a firm composed of R. C. and A. T. Coleman. The defendants filed a plea in which they denied any liability as a firm, and alleged that “the Coleman Motor Company, the signer of the note sited upon, was a duly organized and chartered corporation under the laws of Georgia, and received all the benefits of the consideration of the note sued upon, [of] all of which the plaintiff had notice.” To this plea no demurrer was filed. The evidence as to whether the note was that of the firm, which for a while did business as the Coleman Motor Company, or was the 'obligation of the corporation of the same name which succeeded the partnership, and as to whether the bank had notice of the dissolution of the firm, was in sharp and direct conflict, and the judge erred in not submitting, these issues of fact to a jury.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Buhe, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 858, 33 Ga. App. 542, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-southern-exchange-bank-gactapp-1925.