Plunkett Warden v. Neal
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Presiding Justice.
1. A judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding, being reviewable, is conclusive on the question of the legality or illegality of the alleged detention (Day v. Smith, 172 Ga. 467, 157 S. E. 639), but may be set aside, like other judgments, where invalid. Wright v. Martin, 153 Ga. 32 (111 S. E. 190). This may be done by the statutory motion where based on a defect not amendable appearing on the face of the record (Code, § 110-702; Artope v. Barker, 74 Ga. 462; Regopoulas v. State, 116 Ga. 596, 42 S. E. 1014; Tietjen v. Merchants’ Nat. Bank, 117 Ga. 501, 43 S. E. 730;…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Ford v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Regopoulas v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
- Union Compress Co. v. Leffler & SonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Simpson v. BradleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Artope v. BarkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. DunbarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Sanders v. McHanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Morris Plan Bank of Georgia v. HadsallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1947
- Dixon v. DixonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1955
- Harper v. MayesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.