Legal Opinion

Bowers v. Salitan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided July 11, 1958No. 37186PublishedCited by 9 opinions

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

  1. Burkhalter v. Perry & BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  2. Fricke v. BelzMissouri Court of Appeals · 1944
  3. Dunbar Box & Lumber Co. v. MartinNew York Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Nixon v. NixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  5. Tollison-Davenport Co. v. CarrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Costanzo v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1991
  2. Hawkins v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  3. Evans v. SmithdealCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  4. Dundon v. ForehandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
  5. 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.

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

Powered by the Exa API