Manufacturers Furniture Co. v. Blumenfeld

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Manufacturers Furniture Co. v. Blumenfeld

82 S.E. 151, 14 Ga. App. 671, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 420

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1914

Docket5508

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 S.E. 151 (Manufacturers Furniture Co. v. Blumenfeld) 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

Manufacturers Furniture Co. v. Blumenfeld, 82 S.E. 151, 14 Ga. App. 671, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Roan, J.

This was a suit brought in the city court by the Manufacturers Furniture Company against M. Blumenfeld upon a foreign judgment against H. Blumenfeld, for the purpose of binding the defendant upon a contract of guaranty alleged to be contained in a letter written by him to the plaintiff. On September 19, 1911, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Savannah Bag Company,'stating -that H. Blumenfeld desired credit from the plaintiff, and inquiring if the Savannah Bag Company would consent for goods, in an amount specified, to be charged to it. The following letter was sent‘in reply to this inquiry; “Savannah, Ga. Sept. 21, 1911. The Manufacturers Furniture Co., . . Memphis, Tenn. Gentlemen : We have your favor of September 19th, and carefully note contents. We will be willing to guarantee for Mr. FI. Blumenfeld [672]*672the first few bills of goods that he may purchase from you, but we can not allow you to charge the goods to us, for we are not in the furniture business. Tours truly, [signed] Savannah Bag Co., per M. Blumenfeld.”

The name “Savannah Bag Company” imports a corporation; and this being true, if the letter refers to it in the statement “We will be willing to guarantee,” etc., the suit should have been brought against the company, and not against the defendant individually. If there was in fact no such corporation, and the term “Savannah Bag Company” was a mere trade name used by the individual, M. Blumenfeld, -in the conduct of his business, this fact should'have been stated in the petition. This being true, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. Sanderson v. Etcherson, 36 Ga. 410. Judgment affirmed.

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

Roan, J.

This was a suit brought in the city court by the Manufacturers Furniture Company against M. Blumenfeld upon a foreign judgment against H. Blumenfeld, for the purpose of binding the defendant upon a contract of guaranty alleged to be contained in a letter written by him to the plaintiff. On September 19, 1911, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Savannah Bag Company,'stating -that H. Blumenfeld desired credit from the plaintiff, and inquiring if the Savannah Bag Company would consent for goods, in an amount specified, to be charged to it. The following letter was sent‘in reply to this inquiry; “Savannah, Ga. Sept. 21, 1911. The Manufacturers Furniture Co., . . Memphis, Tenn. Gentlemen : We have your favor of September 19th, and carefully note contents. We will be willing to guarantee for Mr. FI. Blumenfeld [672]*672the first few bills of goods that he may purchase from you, but we can not allow you to charge the goods to us, for we are not in the furniture business. Tours truly, [signed] Savannah Bag Co., per M. Blumenfeld.”

The name “Savannah Bag Company” imports a corporation; and this being true, if the letter refers to it in the statement “We will be willing to guarantee,” etc., the suit should have been brought against the company, and not against the defendant individually. If there was in fact no such corporation, and the term “Savannah Bag Company” was a mere trade name used by the individual, M. Blumenfeld, -in the conduct of his business, this fact should'have been stated in the petition. This being true, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition. Sanderson v. Etcherson, 36 Ga. 410. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 151, 14 Ga. App. 671, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manufacturers-furniture-co-v-blumenfeld-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack