Mauldin v. Stogner

44 S.E.2d 274, 75 Ga. App. 663, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 608
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 13, 1947·No. 31662.·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. In every suit in this State there must be a legal entity as the real plaintiff and the real defendant, either a natural person, an artificial person, such as a corporation, or a quasi-artificial person, such as a partnership.

2. Where the name of the defendant in which the suit is brought does not import a legal entity, but in fact it is a corporation or a partnership, such defect may be cured by an amendment alleging the legal status. Haynes v. Armour Fertilizer Works, 146 Ga. 832 (92 S. E. 648) ; Smith v. Commissioners of Glynn County, 198 Ga. 322 (31 S. E. 2d, 648) ; ■ Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Dalton Marble Works, 122 Ga. 774 (50 S. E. 978). And when a suit is brought against a defendant in a trade name, the petition is amendable by alleging and inserting the name of the individual doing business under that trade name. Schnore v. Joyner, 42 6a. App. 688 (157 S. E. 353); Williamson v. Gentry, 44 Ga. App. 596 (162 S. E. 395) ; Hudgins Contracting Co. v. Redmond,, 178 Ga. 317 (173 S. E. 135).

3. Where, as in the present case, an action is brought against “Atlanta Plating Works, having an office and place of business in Fulton County, Georgia,” as defendant, and the plaintiff’s petition is challenged by demurrer on the ground that no party defendant is shown therein, the petition is amendable by alleging that “defendants herein are H. R. Stogner and J. B. Stogner, doing business under the firm name of Atlanta Plating Works, having an office and place of business in Fulton County, Georgia, ” thereby alleging that the defendant was a partnership, and, after the petition -was thus amended, the court erred in sustaining the defendants’ demurrer and in dismissing the action.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Mauldin v. Stogner, 44 S.E.2d 274, 75 Ga. App. 663, 1947 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1947).

44 S.E.2d 274 (Mauldin v. Stogner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winters v. Lewis
542 S.W.2d 746 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1976)
Thomas v. Home Credit Co.
189 S.E.2d 470 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
John L. Hutcheson Memorial Tri-County Hospital v. Oliver
171 S.E.2d 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Moody Air Force Base Federal Credit Union v. Kinard
156 S.E.2d 526 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Parker v. Kilgo
137 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Waters v. Rentz
134 S.E.2d 527 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Mortemoth Co. v. Southeastern Fur Co.
106 S.E.2d 194 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Pass
74 S.E.2d 141 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
Hartley v. Jerry's Radio & Electric Shop
48 N.W.2d 925 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1951)
Martin v. Waltman
61 S.E.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Bell v. Ayers
60 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)