Prater v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Prater v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.

180 S.E. 235, 180 Ga. 581, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 491

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1935

DocketNo. 10705

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 180 S.E. 235 (Prater v. Larabee Flour Mills Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prater v. Larabee Flour Mills Co., 180 S.E. 235, 180 Ga. 581, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 491 (Ga. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, Justice.

A. J. Prater, doing business as A. J. Prater & Company, filed suit against Larabee Elour Mills Company Incorporated, for commissions alleged to be due him by the defendant. The defendant by amendment to its answer pleaded that the plaintiff had not complied with the trade-name act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233), and was not entitled to maintain his suit. The plaintiff objected to the amendment, on the grounds that the act did not apply to him, because he was operating only in his real name; and that the act was in violation of art. 3, sec. 7, par. 8, of the constitution of Georgia. After hearing evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted. Held:

1. The act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233) is not violative of art. 3, sec. 7, par. 8, of the constitution of Georgia.

2. The name “A. J. Prater & Company” as used by the plaintiff in the conduct of his business was a trade-name in contemplation of the act' [582]*582of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233) ; and the plaintiff, not having complied with the provisions of that act by filing the necessary affidavit setting forth the name and address of the true owner, was not entitled to bring the suit against the defendant. The court did not err in granting a nonsuit. Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston, 179 Ga. 31 (175 S. E. 4).

No. 10705. April 10, 1935. Rehearing denied Mat 18, 1935. John H. Rogers and J. K. J ordan, for plaintiff. Hendrix & Buchanan and Joseph M. Clark, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, Justice.

A. J. Prater, doing business as A. J. Prater & Company, filed suit against Larabee Elour Mills Company Incorporated, for commissions alleged to be due him by the defendant. The defendant by amendment to its answer pleaded that the plaintiff had not complied with the trade-name act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233), and was not entitled to maintain his suit. The plaintiff objected to the amendment, on the grounds that the act did not apply to him, because he was operating only in his real name; and that the act was in violation of art. 3, sec. 7, par. 8, of the constitution of Georgia. After hearing evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted. Held:

1. The act of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233) is not violative of art. 3, sec. 7, par. 8, of the constitution of Georgia.

2. The name “A. J. Prater & Company” as used by the plaintiff in the conduct of his business was a trade-name in contemplation of the act' [582]*582of 1929 (Ga. Laws 1929, p. 233) ; and the plaintiff, not having complied with the provisions of that act by filing the necessary affidavit setting forth the name and address of the true owner, was not entitled to bring the suit against the defendant. The court did not err in granting a nonsuit. Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston, 179 Ga. 31 (175 S. E. 4).

No. 10705. April 10, 1935. Rehearing denied Mat 18, 1935. John H. Rogers and J. K. J ordan, for plaintiff. Hendrix & Buchanan and Joseph M. Clark, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.E. 235, 180 Ga. 581, 1935 Ga. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prater-v-larabee-flour-mills-co-ga-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack