Self v. Smith
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Townsend, Judge.
It is contended that Atlanta-Asheville Motor Express, Inc., and Carmarata, both of whom were parties to the contract, as well as certain third parties named therein, are necessary parties to this action. The only relief sought by the plaintiff is a money judgment against the two defendants Self and Brock, since the other stockholder, Carmarata, was specifically exempted by the contract from any liability to the plaintiff over and above such credits as should accrue to him through the liquidation of the business. Atlanta-Asheville Motor Express, Inc., was the subject matter…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wall v. WallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Jones v. ElyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Weill v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Morel v. HogeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
- Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. ManghamCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pine Valley Apartments Ltd. Partnership v. First State BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Salinas v. SkeltonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2001
- Self v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
- Hatley v. FreyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1978
- Smith v. Freeport Kaolin Co.District Court, M.D. Georgia · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.