Case ID: ga-app_33/html/0542-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bloodworth, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

15978.
    COLEMAN et al. v. SOUTHERN EXCHANGE BANK OF DUBLIN.
    The evidence being in conflict upon the issues made by the defendant’s plea, the court erred in directing a verdict.
    Decided March 3, 1925.
    Complaint; from city court of Dublin—Judge Sturgis. October 11, 1924.
    
      T. E. Hightower, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      L. L. Porter, B. G. Hicks, contra.
   Bloodworth, J.

The Southern Exchange Bank brought suit on a note against the Coleman Motor Company, alleging that it was a firm composed of R. C. and A. T. Coleman. The defendants filed a plea in which they denied any liability as a firm, and alleged that “the Coleman Motor Company, the signer of the note sited upon, was a duly organized and chartered corporation under the laws of Georgia, and received all the benefits of the consideration of the note sued upon, [of] all of which the plaintiff had notice.” To this plea no demurrer was filed. The evidence as to whether the note was that of the firm, which for a while did business as the Coleman Motor Company, or was the 'obligation of the corporation of the same name which succeeded the partnership, and as to whether the bank had notice of the dissolution of the firm, was in sharp and direct conflict, and the judge erred in not submitting, these issues of fact to a jury.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, O. J., and Buhe, J., concur.