Opinion
47274.
SUBMITTED MAY 25, 1972.
DECIDED JUNE 9, 1972. REHEARING DENIED JULY 7, 1972.
Action on account. Fulton Civil Court. Before Judge Wright.
Frank A. Bowers, for appellant.
Wilkinson, Nance Wittner, Shelton R. Wittner, for appellee.
1. Where one corporation sues a debtor on account for merchandise sold and entrusted to the debtor by plaintiff corporation, and the itemized account attached to the corporation's motion for summary judgment shows that a part of the indebtedness sued for is owed, if at all, to another corporation, it is error to grant summary judgment to the plaintiff corporation for the total amount of the indebtedness. See Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 ( 86 S.E.2d 632); Gilham v. Stamm Co., 117 Ga. App. 846 ( 162 S.E.2d 248); Gaines v. Sheldon Simms Co., 119 Ga. App. 870 ( 169 S.E.2d 126); National Advertising Co. v. North American Ins. Realty Co., 122 Ga. App. 481 ( 177 S.E.2d 510).
2. While there may be sufficient reasons as to why the indebtedness, originally owed to the second corporation prior to the incorporation of plaintiff corporation is now legally owed to plaintiff corporation, the latter does not carry its burden of so showing on its motion for summary judgment by stating merely that it "was" the second corporation prior to its own incorporation. See generally Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. Doyal, 84 Ga. App. 122 ( 65 S.E.2d 432). It is essential that it be shown by competent evidence that the corporations are the same, a change of name having been effected, or that the account has been assigned to plaintiff, or that in some other lawful manner plaintiff has acquired ownership of the account, so that the defendant will be in no danger of having to pay the same obligation again. Perhaps this can be made to appear on a second motion for summary judgment ( Sams v. McDonald, 119 Ga. App. 547 ( 167 S.E.2d 668); Venable v. Grage, 116 Ga. App. 340 (1) ( 157 S.E.2d 519); Suggs v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen Enginemen, 106 Ga. App. 563, 564 ( 127 S.E.2d 827)), or certainly upon a trial of the case.
Judgment reversed. Deen and Clark, JJ., concur.