Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Mathews
This text of 58 S.E. 396 (Van Winkle Gin & Machine Works v. Mathews) 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.
Opinion
1. In a suit on a promissory note by the payee therein named,' where the allegation is made that the plaintiff was a corporation, it would be incumbent upon the defendant to prove affirmatively that no such corporation existed. This would be true without such allegation, where the name of the plaintiff itself imports a corporation. Wilson v. Sprague Mowing Machine Co., 55 Ga. 672; Cribb v. Waycross Lumber Company, 82 Ga. 579, 9 S. E. 426; Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 219, 41 S. E. 709. Therefore, in such a suit, where the defendant in his pleading admits the execution of the note, such admission, with the presumption of corporate existence, makes a prima facie case for the plaintiff, and the defendant would be entitled to' the opening and conclusion, although by his answer he had expressly denied the allegation that the plaintiff was a corporation.
2. The other grounds in the motion for a new trial, alleging error in the admission of testimony, as corrected and verified by the trial court, are without merit. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 S.E. 396, 2 Ga. App. 249, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-winkle-gin-machine-works-v-mathews-gactapp-1907.