Maxwell v. Pierce

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Maxwell v. Pierce

190 S.E. 367, 55 Ga. App. 422, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 117

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1937

Docket25483

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 367 (Maxwell v. Pierce) 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

Maxwell v. Pierce, 190 S.E. 367, 55 Ga. App. 422, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Gtjerry, J.

1. “Partners doing business under a trade-name that has not been registered as required by law, who have bought and paid for personal property and have taken from the owner a bill of sale therefor in such trade-name, may maintain an action in the trade-name against a tort-feasor who has seized and converted the property to his own use.” Maxwell v. Pierce, 183 Ga. 859 (189 S. E. 847). Under the foregoing ruling, the court did not err in striking the amendment to the defendant’s answer,

2. The special assignments of error in the motion for new trial are without merit.

3. The verdict, in favor of the plaintiff was amply authorized by the evidence, and the refusal of a new trial was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

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