Bowers v. Salitan
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Felton, Chief Judge.
The notes sued on were all signed as follows: “Bowers Sht. Metal Co.” and immediately thereunder was the signature, “C. L. Bowers.” The notes were not under seal. The plaintiff contends that as a conclusion of law Bowers Sheet Metal Company and C. L. Bowers were comakers on the notes and that the defendant could not by extrinsic evidence show that he had signed in any capacity other than as comaker. This contention is without merit. ’ “The usual method of signing a corporate contract is for the duly authorized officer or agent to sign the corporate name, adding thereto,…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Burkhalter v. Perry & BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Fricke v. BelzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1944
- Dunbar Box & Lumber Co. v. MartinNew York Supreme Court · 1907
- Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Tollison-Davenport Co. v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
3Cited by9 opinions
- Costanzo v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
- Hawkins v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Evans v. SmithdealCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Dundon v. ForehandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Universal Profile, Inc. v. Atlanta Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In re Universal Profile, Inc.)District Court, D. Georgia · 1980
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.