Legal Opinion

Blankenship v. Smart

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided November 1, 1960No. 38488PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Townsend, Judge.

1. The Supreme Court has twice refused to decide the question of whether one vouched into court by the *667defendant to defend an action against him under the provisions of Code § 38-624 may in turn vouch in another against whom the vouchee in the first action may have a remedy over. Loeb v. May, 186 Ga. 742, 743 (198 S. E. 785); Southern Ry. Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, Inc., 193 Ga. 598, 600 (19 S. E. 2d 286, 140 A. L. R. 1118). This being so, the only ruling on this question is to be found in May v. Loeb, 57 Ga. App. 788 (196 S. E. 268) where it was held in a two-judge decision,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. Raleigh & Gaston Railroad v. Western & Atlantic RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1909
  3. Southern Railway Co. v. Acme Fast Freight Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  4. Masters v. PardueCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  5. Pardue v. MastersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hardee v. Allied Steel Buildings, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API