Conley Millwork Co. v. Epler

Supreme Court of Georgia

Conley Millwork Co. v. Epler

132 S.E.2d 25, 219 Ga. 189, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 398

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1963

Docket22075

StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E.2d 25 (Conley Millwork Co. v. Epler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Conley Millwork Co. v. Epler, 132 S.E.2d 25, 219 Ga. 189, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 398 (Ga. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Upon further consideration of this case we hold that it was correctly decided by the Court of Appeals. The paper purporting to be an answer nowhere states that it is the answer of the defendant corporation, nor is the name of the corporation signed thereto, and this is a fatal defect requiring the lower court to strike it on demurrer. Code Ann. § 81-305 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 774). Therefore, had Kirkland signed it, as Vice President, it would have remained fatally defective, but he did not even sign in such representative capacity. His signature is followed by the words “Vice President,” and these quoted words amount to no more than describing who he is but not in what capacity he signed. It is therefore clearly a paper signed by Kirkland individually, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Upon further consideration of this case we hold that it was correctly decided by the Court of Appeals. The paper purporting to be an answer nowhere states that it is the answer of the defendant corporation, nor is the name of the corporation signed thereto, and this is a fatal defect requiring the lower court to strike it on demurrer. Code Ann. § 81-305 (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 761, 774). Therefore, had Kirkland signed it, as Vice President, it would have remained fatally defective, but he did not even sign in such representative capacity. His signature is followed by the words “Vice President,” and these quoted words amount to no more than describing who he is but not in what capacity he signed. It is therefore clearly a paper signed by Kirkland individually, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E.2d 25, 219 Ga. 189, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conley-millwork-co-v-epler-ga-1963.