Harris v. Ackerman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harris v. Ackerman

76 S.E.2d 132, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1029

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 2, 1953

Docket34413

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 76 S.E.2d 132 (Harris v. Ackerman) 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

Harris v. Ackerman, 76 S.E.2d 132, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1029 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Worrill, J.

1. The general rule is that allegations in a petition must yield to contradictory facts shown in exhibits attached thereto. Equitable Credit &c. Co. v. Murray, 79 Ga. App. 795 (2) (54 S. E. 2d 650); Atlanta Journal Co. v. Doyal, 82 Ga. App. 321, 325 (60 S. E. 2d 802).

2. The name “Ackerman Construction Co.” imports a corporation, nothing to the contrary appearing (Carter v. Spiegel, May Stern Co., 45 Ga. App. 754, 166 S. E. 34);. and a check which is signed “Ackerman Construction Co. by Oliver P. Ackerman” is prima facie an obligation of Ackerman Construction Company and not the individual obligation of Oliver P. Ackerman.

3. Where the petition in this case named Oliver P. Ackerman as defendant and alleged merely that the defendant did execute and deliver the check which was attached to the petition as an exhibit, and that said check was duly presented and payment refused, but where the exhibit showed that .the check sued on was executed in the name and style indicated in the second headnote above, the petition was subject to general demurrer, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the petition. See Leach v. Blow, 16 Miss. 221; Lawton v. Swihart, 10 Ind. 562; Atkins v. Brown, 59 Me. 90; 11 C. J. S., Bills & Notes, 35, § 650.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Worrill, J.

1. The general rule is that allegations in a petition must yield to contradictory facts shown in exhibits attached thereto. Equitable Credit &c. Co. v. Murray, 79 Ga. App. 795 (2) (54 S. E. 2d 650); Atlanta Journal Co. v. Doyal, 82 Ga. App. 321, 325 (60 S. E. 2d 802).

2. The name “Ackerman Construction Co.” imports a corporation, nothing to the contrary appearing (Carter v. Spiegel, May Stern Co., 45 Ga. App. 754, 166 S. E. 34);. and a check which is signed “Ackerman Construction Co. by Oliver P. Ackerman” is prima facie an obligation of Ackerman Construction Company and not the individual obligation of Oliver P. Ackerman.

3. Where the petition in this case named Oliver P. Ackerman as defendant and alleged merely that the defendant did execute and deliver the check which was attached to the petition as an exhibit, and that said check was duly presented and payment refused, but where the exhibit showed that .the check sued on was executed in the name and style indicated in the second headnote above, the petition was subject to general demurrer, and the trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and in dismissing the petition. See Leach v. Blow, 16 Miss. 221; Lawton v. Swihart, 10 Ind. 562; Atkins v. Brown, 59 Me. 90; 11 C. J. S., Bills & Notes, 35, § 650.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E.2d 132, 88 Ga. App. 128, 1953 Ga. App. LEXIS 1029, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-ackerman-gactapp-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack