Trigg Candy Co. v. Emmett Shaw Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Attachment; from city court of Fort Gaines — Ben M. Turnip-seed, judge pro hac vice. February 14, 1910. This ease came to this court on exceptions to the judgment overruling a demurrer, general and special, to the petition.
Read the full summary
Attachment; from city court of Fort Gaines — Ben M. Turnip-seed, judge pro hac vice. February 14, 1910. This ease came to this court on exceptions to the judgment overruling a demurrer, general and special, to the petition. The petition is as follows: “(1) The petition of Emmett Shaw Company, said company being composed of Emmett Shaw and Carrie Shaw, shows that the Trigg Candy Company, a corporation doing business under the laws of the State of Tennessee, is indebted to said Emmett Shaw Company in the sum of $234.30. “ (2) That said Trigg Candy Company sold to your petitioner on the 3d day…
1Opinion of the CourtHill, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.)
1. The allegation is positive that the contract in question was *360made by the corporation. It is signed: “Trigg Candy Co., Chattanooga, G. E. Arnold.” It does not appear whether Arnold was a general agent, or a sjoecial agent authorized to make the contract, or was in fact an officer of the corporation who was fully authorized to make the contract; but the allegation that the contract was the act of the corporation was sufficient to let in proof as to these other facts, and consequently this allegation, in connection with the contract itself, was sufficient…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Simpson & Harper v. Sanders & JenkinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
3Cited by4 opinions
- Germain Co. v. Bank of Camden CountyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Hastings-Stout Co. v. J. L. Walker & Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1932
- Chickamauga Manufacturing Co. v. Augusta Grocery Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1919
- Anagnostis v. AlexandrouCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1948