Rizk v. Tucker Coal & Brick Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rizk v. Tucker Coal & Brick Co.

248 S.E.2d 215, 147 Ga. App. 155, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2825

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1978

Docket56106

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 215 (Rizk v. Tucker Coal & Brick Co.) 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

Rizk v. Tucker Coal & Brick Co., 248 S.E.2d 215, 147 Ga. App. 155, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2825 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. A corporation has a duty to reveal its corporate status to the persons with whom it deals. See Patterson v. Duron Paints of Ga., 144 Ga. App. 123 (3) (240 SE2d 603) (1977). See generally Lamas v. Baldwin, 140 Ga. App. 37 (230 SE2d 13) (1976). The parties in this case agree that the appellant, Rizk, had procured goods for his partnership from the appellee, Tucker Coal & Brick Company, on open account. The issue argued on appeal is whether the appellant ever informed the appellee of the incorporation of his business thereby rendering the unpaid account in this suit a corporate debt. The appellant expressly excluded the transcript of the proceedings below from this record on appeal, but apparently the evidence in this regard was [156]*156disputed. The omission is not significant, however, since the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the weight of the evidence. Minor v. State, 139 Ga. App. 168 (1) (228 SE2d 33) (1976). Accordingly, the trial judge’s denial of the appellant’s motion for new trial is affirmed.

Submitted June 28, 1978 Decided September 11, 1978. James W. Garner, Dennis T. Still, for appellant. John F. Lester, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion for new trial on the general grounds. A corporation has a duty to reveal its corporate status to the persons with whom it deals. See Patterson v. Duron Paints of Ga., 144 Ga. App. 123 (3) (240 SE2d 603) (1977). See generally Lamas v. Baldwin, 140 Ga. App. 37 (230 SE2d 13) (1976). The parties in this case agree that the appellant, Rizk, had procured goods for his partnership from the appellee, Tucker Coal & Brick Company, on open account. The issue argued on appeal is whether the appellant ever informed the appellee of the incorporation of his business thereby rendering the unpaid account in this suit a corporate debt. The appellant expressly excluded the transcript of the proceedings below from this record on appeal, but apparently the evidence in this regard was [156]*156disputed. The omission is not significant, however, since the Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review the weight of the evidence. Minor v. State, 139 Ga. App. 168 (1) (228 SE2d 33) (1976). Accordingly, the trial judge’s denial of the appellant’s motion for new trial is affirmed.

Submitted June 28, 1978 Decided September 11, 1978. James W. Garner, Dennis T. Still, for appellant. John F. Lester, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 215, 147 Ga. App. 155, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizk-v-tucker-coal-brick-co-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack