South Georgia Power Co. v. Beavers

146 S.E. 924, 39 Ga. App. 374, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 321
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 27, 1929
Docket18947
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 146 S.E. 924 (South Georgia Power Co. v. Beavers) 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
South Georgia Power Co. v. Beavers, 146 S.E. 924, 39 Ga. App. 374, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 321 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Whether or not allegations in a pleading that two corporations have become merged and also that one owns and controls the other and directs its affairs are subject to demurrer upon the ground that the allegations are not sufficiently specific, in that they do not show how or in what manner the alleged merger has been accomplished, or that one corporation owns and controls the other and directs its affairs, the objection is removed and there is no merit in the demurrer where it is further alleged that this knowledge is not possessed by the pleader, but is possessed by the opposite party by reason of the fact that the terms, conditions, and provisions of the merger, and all writings of every kind effecting the merger, are within the knowledge, custody, and control of the opposite party.

2. In a suit against several corporations to recover in one action damages for personal injuries, where the petition alleged that some of the corporations had become merged with one another, an amendment to the petition, adding as new parties two other corporations, who, it is alleged, committed the tort complained of, and praying that process issue against them, was properly allowed. Civil Code (1910), § 5687.

[375]*375Decided February 27, 1929. Lawrence & Abrahams, Hollis Fort, for plaintiff in error. Stephen Pace, W. TP. Dykes, contra.

3. The trial court did. not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition .and in allowing the amendment.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., eonettr.

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

Related

McEntyre v. Clack
122 S.E.2d 595 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Piedmont Life Insurance Co. v. Bell
119 S.E.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Community Gas Co. v. Williams
73 S.E.2d 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
American Thread Co. v. Rochester
62 S.E.2d 602 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Bell v. Ayers
60 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Beebe v. Smith
45 S.E.2d 212 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)
Schnore v. Joyner
157 S.E. 353 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
146 S.E. 924, 39 Ga. App. 374, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-georgia-power-co-v-beavers-gactapp-1929.