Legal Opinion

Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. Pinkston

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 15, 1933No. 22762PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. A declaration in attachment filed in the trade name of the plaintiff was not void because the attachment itself was sued out in the name of the individual trading under the alleged trade name appearing in the declaration.

2. A petition brought in the trade name of a plaintiff is amendable by *515alleging the true name of the plaintiff doing business under the alleged trade name.

3. Where from time to time a manufacturer has sold and delivered the manufactured product in wholesale lots to one retail dealer in a designated territory, under an agreement to give him the exclusive handling of the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Dunn & McCarthy Inc. v. PinkstonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  2. Clemons v. OlshineCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  3. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. JarrettDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 1942
  4. National Brands Stores Inc. v. Muse & AssociatesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  5. Mobley v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API