Legal Opinion

Weller v. Davis & Sanford Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided August 22, 1914No. 5545PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal; from Fulton superior court—Judge Bell. January 17,. 1914.

1Opinion of the CourtWade, J.

1. Where a name imports a corporate body, it is not necessary to aver, in bringing suit, that a party so named is a corporation, since there is a presumption to this effect, and this presumption prevails unless the contrary is made to appear. Edenfield v. Bank of Millen, 7 Ga. App. 645 (67 S. E. 896) ; Wilson v. Sprague Mowing Machine Co., 55 Ga. 673; St. Cecilia’s Academy v. Hardin, 78 Ga. 40 (3 S. E. 305) ; Cribb v. Waycross Lumber Co., 82 Ga. 597 (9 S. E. 426); Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212 (7) (41 S. E. 709). The words “Davis & Sanford Company” import a corporation, and, in a suit brought…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mattox v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Charles v. Valdosta Foundry & Machine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  3. Henderson v. Maysville Guano Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1914
  4. Edenfield v. Bank of MillenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
  5. Saint Cecilia's Academy v. HardinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bremen Foundry & Machine Works v. BoswellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
  2. Ingle System Co. v. NorrisTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Improved Fertilizer Co. v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
  4. Goodman v. ClarksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
  5. Harvey v. City Finance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API