Legal Opinion

Hill v. McCandless

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided January 5, 1945No. 15044PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Jekkins, Presiding Justice.

1. Under the authority of Cates v. Duncan, 181 Ga. 686 (183 S. E. 797), Dyson v. Washington Telephone Co., 157 Ga. 67 (3 a) (121 S. E. 105), and the Code, § 37-301, this court retains jurisdiction of the bill of exceptions, since the scope of the pleadings embraces not only a statutory application for partition but a prayer for equitable accounting between tenants in common for rents, profits, and waste.

2. In any proceeding for partition, the owner or owners asking for the same shall by petition in writing plainly set forth the facts and circumstances which…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Snipes v. ParkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1896
  2. Wright v. HillSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  3. Dyson v. Washington Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  4. Smith v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
  5. Cates v. DuncanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Mills v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  2. Seymour v. PresleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1977
  3. Joel v. JoelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
  4. Poole v. PooleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1964
  5. Cheeves v. LacksenSupreme Court of Georgia · 2001

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API