Case ID: ga-app_35/html/0085-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Stephens, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

16323.
    Golden's Foundry & Machine Company v. Wight et al.
    
    Corporations, 14 C. J. p. 308, n. 88, 89; 14a C. J. p. 591, n. 67.
    Partnership, 30 Cyc. p. 402, n. 39 New; p. 592, n. 26.
   Stephens, J.

1. A corporation may transact business within its corporate powers in a name other than its legally authorized corporate name. Saunders System v. Drive It Yourself Co., 158 Ga. 1 (123 S. E. 132) ; Home Machine & Foundry Co. v. Davis Foundry & Machine Works, 135 Ga. 18 (3) (68 S. E. 800); McClain v. Georgian Co., 17 Ga. App. 648 (3) (87 S. E. 1090); 14 C. J. 591.

2. The officers of a corporation who transact its business under an assumed or trade name are not liable to a person dealing with them as a corporation in ignorance of this fact for a debt contracted by them under the assumed name, upon the theory that they are partners, having assumed to act as a corporation before having complied with the statutory requirements prerequisite to their organization as a corporation legally authorized, to do business. Pilsen Brewing Co. v. Wallace, 291 Ill. 59 (125 N. E. 714, 8 A. L. R. 579).

Decided February 18, 1926.

Complaint; from Grady superior court—Judge Custer. February 7, 1925.

Henry B. Goetchius, Titus & Delete, for plaintiff.

3. In a suit against named persons, which seeks to recover against them as partners upon a contract made by them with the plaintiff in behalf of a purported corporation styled Wight & Jones Company, where it appears from undisputed evidence that the plaintiff contracted with Wight & Jones Company as a corporation, that the name Wight & Jones Company was but an assumed or trade name of an existing corporation styled Wight-Jones Seed & Implement Company, and that the contract sued on was executed by the corporation acting in its assumed or trade name through the defendants as its legally authorized officers, a verdict for the defendants was properly directed.

4. No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenlcins, P. J., and Bell, J., ooneur.