Legal Opinion

Hurt & Quinn, Inc. v. Keen

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 15, 1953No. 34843PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.

A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions was made on the grounds: (1) that there was no sufficient assignment of error; and (2) because no parties are named or designated in the bill of exceptions. The exceptions here begin as follows: “Be it remembered that in the case of Hurt & Quinn, Inc. against James L. Keen, Jr. . .” The parties are thereafter referred to as plaintiff and defendant. It is signed, “H. Dale Thompson, attorney for Hurt & Quinn, plaintiff in error.” Service is acknowledged by the named “attorneys for defendant in error.” The parties are therefore sufficiently designated…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Huxford v. Southern Pine Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  2. Jordan v. HarberSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
  3. Henry Darling Inc. v. Harvey-Given Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. GrantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
  5. Breen v. BarfieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Gage v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  2. Williams v. Appliances, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  3. Spiegel v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
  4. Abney v. MB THOMAS AUTO SALES COMPANY., INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
  5. Hopkins v. West Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962

9 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