Williamson v. Gentry

162 S.E. 395, 44 Ga. App. 596, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 411
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 18, 1932
Docket21307
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 S.E. 395 (Williamson v. Gentry) 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
Williamson v. Gentry, 162 S.E. 395, 44 Ga. App. 596, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 411 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. A person doing business under a trade name may bring suit in that name as his trade name. This is true although the trade name may be that of a corporation in which the person doing business in that name owns all the capital stock.

2. A motion for a continuance on the ground of surprise, made upon the allowance of an amendment to the petition, is defective where it is not at the time expressly represented, to the court that such surprise is “not claimed for the purpose of delay.” Civil Code (1910), § 5714; Hoffman v. Franklin Motor-Car Co., 32 Ga. App. 229 (2) (122 S. E. 896); Atlantic & Birmingham Railroad Co. v. Douglas, 119 Ga. 658 (46 S. E. 867).

3. The evidence showed conclusively and without dispute that the alleged indebtedness of the defendant was due to the plaintiff named in the petition, and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Related

Goldgar v. North Fulton Realty Co.
127 S.E.2d 189 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Mortemoth Co. v. Southeastern Fur Co.
106 S.E.2d 194 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)
Gregory v. Ross
104 S.E.2d 452 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Mauldin v. Stogner
44 S.E.2d 274 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 S.E. 395, 44 Ga. App. 596, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williamson-v-gentry-gactapp-1932.