Weller v. Davis & Sanford Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Mattox v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Charles v. Valdosta Foundry & Machine Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
- Henderson v. Maysville Guano Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1914
- Edenfield v. Bank of MillenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
- Saint Cecilia's Academy v. HardinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bremen Foundry & Machine Works v. BoswellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Ingle System Co. v. NorrisTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- Improved Fertilizer Co. v. Swift & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Goodman v. ClarksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- Harvey v. City Finance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930