Howard & Son v. Cowan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Howard & Son v. Cowan

88 S.E. 695, 17 Ga. App. 760, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 916

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket6734

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 695 (Howard & Son v. Cowan) 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

Howard & Son v. Cowan, 88 S.E. 695, 17 Ga. App. 760, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 916 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. The code provision that when partners are being sued in their firm name, it is unnecessary to prove the partnership unless it is denied by the defendant in a verified plea (Civil Code, § 3166), means merely that where no verified plea of no partnership has been filed, the burden of proving the partnership is not put upon the plaintiff; and it follows that the fact of the partnership, in the absence of proof to the contrary, will be conclusively presumed. However, in a case in which the defendant proves by uncontradicted evidence, which is not objected to, that no such partnership as alleged in the petition existed at the time that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose, a verdict finding against the alleged firm, in the absence of an appropriate amendment to the petition, should be set aside and ,a new trial granted, notwithstanding the defendant’s omission to file a verified plea of no partnership, See Martin v. Lamb, 77 Ga. 252 (3 S. E. 10); Green v. Willingham, 100 Ga. 224, 226 (28 S. E. 42); Stricklin v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139, 142 (58 S. E. 215). Under the above ruling, the verdict in this case against the partnership was contrary to the evidence and the law, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

2. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict is never error.

3. As the case must be retried, and the evidence on the new trial may vary from that in the present record, we forbear to express an opinion as to whether, under the facts of the ease, the defendant could be held liable for damages by the plaintiff.

. Judgment reversed.

Russell, C. J., absent.

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

Broyles, J.

1. The code provision that when partners are being sued in their firm name, it is unnecessary to prove the partnership unless it is denied by the defendant in a verified plea (Civil Code, § 3166), means merely that where no verified plea of no partnership has been filed, the burden of proving the partnership is not put upon the plaintiff; and it follows that the fact of the partnership, in the absence of proof to the contrary, will be conclusively presumed. However, in a case in which the defendant proves by uncontradicted evidence, which is not objected to, that no such partnership as alleged in the petition existed at the time that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose, a verdict finding against the alleged firm, in the absence of an appropriate amendment to the petition, should be set aside and ,a new trial granted, notwithstanding the defendant’s omission to file a verified plea of no partnership, See Martin v. Lamb, 77 Ga. 252 (3 S. E. 10); Green v. Willingham, 100 Ga. 224, 226 (28 S. E. 42); Stricklin v. Crawley, 1 Ga. App. 139, 142 (58 S. E. 215). Under the above ruling, the verdict in this case against the partnership was contrary to the evidence and the law, and the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

2. Under repeated rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court, the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict is never error.

3. As the case must be retried, and the evidence on the new trial may vary from that in the present record, we forbear to express an opinion as to whether, under the facts of the ease, the defendant could be held liable for damages by the plaintiff.

. Judgment reversed.

Russell, C. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 695, 17 Ga. App. 760, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-son-v-cowan-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack