Legal Opinion
City of Atlanta v. Aycock
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided May 9, 1949No. 16632PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Head, Justice.
1. “There is no misjoinder of parties or of causes of action, even if the petition concerns things of a different nature against several defendants whose rights are distinct, if it sets forth one connected interest among them all, centering in the point in issue in the case.” Hermann v. Mobley, 172 Ga. 380 (3) (158 S. E. 38), and cases cited; Code, § 37-1007.
2. “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,…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Blaisdell v. BohrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1881
- Western & Atlantic Railroad v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Smith v. HancockSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Hermann v. MobleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Smith v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jordan v. OrrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
- CONSUMERS FINANCING CORPORATION v. LambSupreme Court of Georgia · 1961
- McDONOUGH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF GEORGIA v. Ormewood Apartments, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1956
- MACON-BIBB COUNTY v. GREEN MEADOWS HOUSING PARTNERS, L. P.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2024
- Martin v. City of AtlantaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950