Legal Opinion

Mortemoth Co. v. Southeastern Fur Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 13, 1958No. 37410PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

A plaintiff’s name ending in the word “company” imports a legal entity and thus will support an amendment showing the status of such plaintiff, although a name not purporting a legal entity, such as “Dalton Marble Works” does not contain enough to amend by. Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Dalton Marble Works, 122 Ga. 774 (50 S. E. 978). It is well settled that a suit naming the plaintiff as “The Blank Company” may always be amended to read that the plaintiff is “John Doe doing business as the Blank Company.” See Johnson & Johnson Construction Co. v. Pioneer Neon Supply…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Dalton Marble WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Hudgins Contracting Co. v. RedmondSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  3. Charles v. Valdosta Foundry & Machine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Mauldin v. StognerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
  5. Johnson & Johnson Construction Co. v. Pioneer Neon Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1958

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Parker v. KilgoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1964
  2. Smith v. HartrampfCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  3. Darby v. CrossnoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  4. Dixie Queen Produce Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API