Youmans v. Riley Props., 349 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Youmans v. Riley Props., 349 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Memar v. Styblo (gactapp, 2008-09-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Memar v. Styblo
Ga. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Co., 251 Ga. 162, 163 ( 303 SE2d 742 ) (1983); Franklyn Gesner Fine Paintings v. Ketcham, 252 Ga. 537, 540 ( 314 SE2d 903 ) (1984); OCGA §§ 9-11-9 (a); 9-11-15 (a); 9-11-17 (a); Youmans v. Riley Properties, 180 Ga. App. 176, 177 ( 349 SE2d 1 ) (1986); Adams v. Cato, 175 Ga. App. 28 -29 ( 332 SE2d 355 ) (1985). *530 Even where, as here, the plaintiff initially bringing the complaint is not a legal entity capable of bringing suit, if the plaintiff “is reasonably recognizable as a misnomer for a legal entity which is the real party plaintiff, the misnomer may be corrected by amendment.” Blo…
discussed Cited "see" Martin v. Brown
Ga. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Appellee has the duty not only to specifically raise such issue but also as to proof of such defense; see Youmans v. Riley Properties, 180 Ga. App. 176 ( 349 SE2d 1 ) (1986); Patterson v. Duron Paints of Ga., 144 Ga. App. 123 ( 240 SE2d 603 ) (1977).
Youmans
v.
Riley Properties
72843.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Sep 2, 1986.
349 S.E.2d 1
Michael R. Hauptman, for appellant., Casper S. Whitner, for appellee.
Banke, Birdsong, Sognier.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Banke, Chief Judge.

This appeal is by the defendant in a dispossessory action from the denial of his motion for new trial: The sole enumeration of error is that the trial court was required to grant the motion because the named plaintiff did not purport to be a legal entity. Held:

“Where a party desires to raise an issue as to the capacity or authority of a party to bring an action, he must do so by specific negative averment in his responsive pleadings . . . Otherwise, such defense[ ] [is] deemed waived.” Klorer-Willhardt, Inc. v. Martz, 166 Ga. App. 446, 447 (304 SE2d 442) (1983). See also OCGA § 9-11-9 (a).[*177] The effect of this procedural rule is to ensure that the plaintiff will have an opportunity to correct the misnomer by amendment. See generally OCGA §§ 9-11-15 (c); 9-11-17 (a). The former rule that all proceedings are a nullity if the plaintiff named in the original complaint is not a legal entity no longer obtains. See Block v. Voyager Life Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 162 (1) (303 SE2d 742) (1983). Moreover, “ ‘[objections which go to the judgment only, and do not extend to the verdict, cannot properly be made grounds of a motion for new trial.’ ” Smith v. Wood, 189 Ga. 695 (2) (7 SE2d 255) (1940).

Decided September 2, 1986. Michael R. Hauptman, for appellant. Casper S. Whitner, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Birdsong, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.