Legal Opinion
Gormley v. Wilson
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided March 4, 1933No. 8962PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.
1. “A bill is not multifarious because all of the defendants are not interested in all of the matters contained in the suit. It is sufficient if each party has an interest in some matter in the suit which is common to all, and that they are connected with the others.” Blaisdell v. Bohr, 68 Ga. 56; Conley v. Buck, 100 Ga. 187 (28 S. E. 97) ; East Atlanta Land Co. v. Mower, 138 Ga. 380 (3), 384 (75 S. E. 418), and cit. “All persons who are directly or consequentially interested in the event of the suit should be made parties.” Ib.
2. Under the facts alleged, the contract under which the assets…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Conley v. BuckSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Blaylock v. HackelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- East Atlanta Land Co. v. MowerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Blaisdell v. BohrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- Mobley v. MarlinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Perkins v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
- Martin v. Oakhurst Development Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Swann v. WrightSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
- Felder v. OldhamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Remington-Rand Inc. v. Emory UniversitySupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.