in signing "Hawkins Plumbing Company, Inc.," raises the inference that Clark knew that the contract execution was that of a corporate entity. See Williams v. Appliances, Inc.," 91 Ga. App. 608 ( 86 S.E.2d 632) (1955). See generally Collins v. Brayson Supply Co., 157 Ga. App. 438, 439 ( 278 S.E.2d 87) (1981); Stephens v. Bibb Investment Co., 54 Ga. App. 321 ( 187 S.E. 709) (1936).

1. Exhibits attached to a petition control over its general allegations. Gaines v. Sheldon Simms Co., 119 Ga. App. 870 ( 169 S.E.2d 126); Gilham v. Stamm Co., 117 Ga. App. 846 ( 162 S.E.2d 248); Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632); Spiegel v. Hays, 103 Ga. App. 293, 297 ( 119 S.E.2d 123); J. G. T., Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 119 Ga. App. 719 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 847). Solemn admissions in judicio as made in the pleadings are conclusive against the party making them, unless formally withdrawn from the pleadings ( Wood v. Claxton, 199 Ga. 809 (1) ( 35 S.E.2d 455)), and a party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleadings, unless it has been withdrawn from the record. Head v. Lee, 203 Ga. 191 (8) ( 45 S.E.2d 666). Consequently defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted where plaintiff brought suit against the corporate defendant, doing business under a trade name, "upon an account which is now due, copy of which is hereto attached, marked `Exhibit A' and made a part of this petition by reference thereto," and where the statement of the account attached to the complaint shows the debtor to be an individual doing business under the trade name. Williams

Pretermitting the question of whether the particular subject matter is ground for special demurrer only, or ground for general demurrer (see in this connection Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624, 625 (3) ( 122 S.E.2d 463), and compare Southern Home Contractors, Inc. v. Royal, 110 Ga. App. 861 (1) ( 140 S.E.2d 229)), it is necessary that we decide the question raised. As was stated in Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632), an exhibit attached to a petition controls over general allegations, but there is no necessity for saying "the exhibit controls" unless there is some conflict between the two. In the Williams case the petition named "J. D. Robinson, Inc."

"Exhibits attached to a petition control over its general allegations." Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632). "The demurrer admits only the facts and not the legal conclusions drawn therefrom by the pleader." Lee v. City of Atlanta, 197 Ga. 518, 520 ( 29 S.E.2d 774). On demurrer, the petition will be construed in accordance with the facts as shown by the exhibits outlining the duties and powers of the fire marshal, and not in accordance with the interpretation alleged by the pleader.

Thus, [a defendant] is not precluded by operation of the default from showing that no claim exist[s] which [w]ould allow [a plaintiff] to recover from [the defendant]. Id. at 193[-194 (2)]; Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 ( 86 S.E.2d 632) (1955); Thigpen v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 67 Ga. App. 367, 368 ( 20 S.E.2d 213) (1942)." Weldon v. Williams, 170 Ga. App. 589, 591 (3) ( 317 S.E.2d 570) (1984).

Thus, appellant is not precluded by operation of the default from showing that no claim existed which could allow Williams as administratrix to recover from him. Id. at 193 (2)-194; Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 ( 86 S.E.2d 632) (1955); Thigpen v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 67 Ga. App. 367, 368 ( 20 S.E.2d 213) (1942). OCGA § 51-4-2 (a) provides that where there is no widow, "a child or children, either minor or sui juris may recover for the homicide of the . . . father . . . .

1. Exhibits attached to a petition control over its general allegations. Gaines v. Sheldon Simms Co., 119 Ga. App. 870 ( 169 S.E.2d 126); J. G. T., Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 119 Ga. App. 719 (1) ( 168 S.E.2d 847); Gilham v. Stamm Co., 117 Ga. App. 846 ( 162 S.E.2d 248); Spiegel v. Hays, 103 Ga. App. 293, 297 ( 119 S.E.2d 123); Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632). Solemn admissions in judicio as made in the pleadings are conclusive against the party making them, unless formally withdrawn from the pleadings ( Wood v. Claxton, 199 Ga. 809 (1) ( 35 S.E.2d 455)), and a party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleadings, unless it has been withdrawn from the record. Head v. Lee, 203 Ga. 191 (8) ( 45 S.E.2d 666).

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.

In this action by the buyer for damages for breach of a realty sale contract against the corporate seller, the corporate broker and an individual alleged to be president of both corporate defendants, the general allegation of the complaint, that plaintiff contracted with "the defendants," must yield to the contract itself, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, showing its execution merely by the corporate seller by its president. Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632) and cit. Therefore, the trial court did not err in its judgment sustaining the motions to dismiss of the defendant corporate broker and the defendant individual.

Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624, 626 ( 122 S.E.2d 463). The exhibits showing all items to have been charged to the corporate defendant must control over the general allegation in the petition that the "defendants are indebted to plaintiff" in a stated amount. Saldivia v. Saldivia, 218 Ga. 98 ( 126 S.E.2d 615); William v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 S.E.2d 632). Since this is a default judgment there is no presumption that there was proof before the court that would have authorized a finding of liability on the account as to Gilham, the individual. Bayne v. Sun Finance Co. No. 1, 114 Ga. App. 27 (5) ( 150 S.E.2d 311).