Pittard v. United Press International, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Pittard v. United Press International, Inc.

162 S.E.2d 748, 118 Ga. App. 55, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1305

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 24, 1968

Docket43602

StatusPublished

This text of 162 S.E.2d 748 (Pittard v. United Press International, Inc.) 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

Pittard v. United Press International, Inc., 162 S.E.2d 748, 118 Ga. App. 55, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1305 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where a radio broadcasting business conducted by a partnership is operated in' the trade name of “Sawnee Broadcasting Company,” and the duly authorized manager of said business enters into a contract with another for the furnishing of news service to the radio broadcasting station for a period of 5 years, which contract purports to [56]*56show the business as “Sawnee Broadcasting Company, a Georgia corporation,” but it does not appear that the contract was entered into in contemplation of the formation of a corporation, and during said period one of the partners buys out the others and “incorporates the business” using the same name as the trade name with the abbreviation “Inc.” added, and the corporation receives and pays for services under the contract, and the corporation is subsequently dissolved, and the business, using the name “Sawnee Broadcasting Company,” continues to operate the business as a sole proprietorship by the sole stockholder, who subsequently breaches the contract by failing to pay for services, the corporation is not liable therefor. Taylor Lumber Co. v. Clark Lumber Co., 33 Ga. App. 815 (1, 2) (127 SE 905).

Submitted May 8, 1968 Decided June 24, 1968. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, Bichard M. Hester, for appellants. Bert N. Garstin, for appellee.

2. The verdict against the only resident defendant being unauthorized, the verdict against the individual, not a resident of the county, was also unauthorized. Hamilton v. DuPre, 111 Ga. 819 (2) (35 SE 684); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga. 414 (3) (38 SE 989, 84 ASR 250); Rounsaville v. McGinnis, 93 Ga. 579 (21 SE 123). Nothing to the contrary was ruled in Burger v. Noble, 81 Ga. App. 759 (59 SE2d 761), where, after verdict in favor of the resident defendant, the nonresident defendant moved for a new trial and was held to have consented to jurisdiction of the court. It follows, therefore, that the trial court erred in overruling the joint motion of both defendants for new trial on the general grounds only.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

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

Pannell, Judge.

1. Where a radio broadcasting business conducted by a partnership is operated in' the trade name of “Sawnee Broadcasting Company,” and the duly authorized manager of said business enters into a contract with another for the furnishing of news service to the radio broadcasting station for a period of 5 years, which contract purports to [56]*56show the business as “Sawnee Broadcasting Company, a Georgia corporation,” but it does not appear that the contract was entered into in contemplation of the formation of a corporation, and during said period one of the partners buys out the others and “incorporates the business” using the same name as the trade name with the abbreviation “Inc.” added, and the corporation receives and pays for services under the contract, and the corporation is subsequently dissolved, and the business, using the name “Sawnee Broadcasting Company,” continues to operate the business as a sole proprietorship by the sole stockholder, who subsequently breaches the contract by failing to pay for services, the corporation is not liable therefor. Taylor Lumber Co. v. Clark Lumber Co., 33 Ga. App. 815 (1, 2) (127 SE 905).

Submitted May 8, 1968 Decided June 24, 1968. Hester & Hester, Frank B. Hester, Bichard M. Hester, for appellants. Bert N. Garstin, for appellee.

2. The verdict against the only resident defendant being unauthorized, the verdict against the individual, not a resident of the county, was also unauthorized. Hamilton v. DuPre, 111 Ga. 819 (2) (35 SE 684); Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Brown, 113 Ga. 414 (3) (38 SE 989, 84 ASR 250); Rounsaville v. McGinnis, 93 Ga. 579 (21 SE 123). Nothing to the contrary was ruled in Burger v. Noble, 81 Ga. App. 759 (59 SE2d 761), where, after verdict in favor of the resident defendant, the nonresident defendant moved for a new trial and was held to have consented to jurisdiction of the court. It follows, therefore, that the trial court erred in overruling the joint motion of both defendants for new trial on the general grounds only.

Judgment reversed.

Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E.2d 748, 118 Ga. App. 55, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittard-v-united-press-international-inc-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack