Holliday Construction Co. v. Higginbotham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holliday Construction Co. v. Higginbotham

316 S.E.2d 560, 170 Ga. App. 114, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1819

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1984

Docket67491

StatusPublished

This text of 316 S.E.2d 560 (Holliday Construction Co. v. Higginbotham) 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

Holliday Construction Co. v. Higginbotham, 316 S.E.2d 560, 170 Ga. App. 114, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1819 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Pope, Judge.

Holliday Construction Company filed this action for declaratory judgment against Dewey S. Higginbotham, Tax Collector of Elbert County, Georgia and other county tax officials. During a hearing on a preliminary matter, it became apparent that plaintiff construction company was in fact a partnership. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to have a proper party plaintiff. The trial court took the matter under advisement, and before a ruling was entered plaintiff amended its complaint to reflect its true status: “Holliday Construction Company, a partnership composed of John W. Holliday and Garnett M. Holliday, partners.” The trial court subsequently entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff brings this appeal from that order.

Since no pre-trial order had been entered in this case, plaintiff was free to amend its complaint as a matter of course. OCGA § 9-11-15 (a). “Where a petition is brought in a name or names which import a corporation or partnership, and not an artificial name which imports neither, it is amendable so as to allege the true nature of the plaintiff or plaintiffs. [Cits.]” Clemons v. Olshine, 54 Ga. App. 290, 291 (187 SE 711) (1936); Smith & Co. v. Columbia Jewelry Co., 114 Ga. 698 (1) (40 SE 735) (1902). Since the complaint in this case was brought in a name which indicated a corporate entity, plaintiff was authorized to amend the complaint declaring its true status as a partnership. Smith v. Commrs. &c. of Glynn County, 198 Ga. 322, 324 (31 SE2d 648) (1944); see also John L. Hutcheson &c. Hosp. v. Oliver, 120 Ga. App. 547 (1) (171 SE2d 649) (1969). It follows that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. See also Rushing v. Ellis, 124 Ga. App. 621 (1) (184 SE2d 667) (1971).

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur. Robert M. Heard, John S. Jenkins, for appellees.

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

Pope, Judge.

Holliday Construction Company filed this action for declaratory judgment against Dewey S. Higginbotham, Tax Collector of Elbert County, Georgia and other county tax officials. During a hearing on a preliminary matter, it became apparent that plaintiff construction company was in fact a partnership. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to have a proper party plaintiff. The trial court took the matter under advisement, and before a ruling was entered plaintiff amended its complaint to reflect its true status: “Holliday Construction Company, a partnership composed of John W. Holliday and Garnett M. Holliday, partners.” The trial court subsequently entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff brings this appeal from that order.

Since no pre-trial order had been entered in this case, plaintiff was free to amend its complaint as a matter of course. OCGA § 9-11-15 (a). “Where a petition is brought in a name or names which import a corporation or partnership, and not an artificial name which imports neither, it is amendable so as to allege the true nature of the plaintiff or plaintiffs. [Cits.]” Clemons v. Olshine, 54 Ga. App. 290, 291 (187 SE 711) (1936); Smith & Co. v. Columbia Jewelry Co., 114 Ga. 698 (1) (40 SE 735) (1902). Since the complaint in this case was brought in a name which indicated a corporate entity, plaintiff was authorized to amend the complaint declaring its true status as a partnership. Smith v. Commrs. &c. of Glynn County, 198 Ga. 322, 324 (31 SE2d 648) (1944); see also John L. Hutcheson &c. Hosp. v. Oliver, 120 Ga. App. 547 (1) (171 SE2d 649) (1969). It follows that the trial court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. See also Rushing v. Ellis, 124 Ga. App. 621 (1) (184 SE2d 667) (1971).

Judgment reversed.

Quillian, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur. Robert M. Heard, John S. Jenkins, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

316 S.E.2d 560, 170 Ga. App. 114, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holliday-construction-co-v-higginbotham-gactapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack