Hurt & Quinn, Inc. v. Keen
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Huxford v. Southern Pine Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Jordan v. HarberSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
- Henry Darling Inc. v. Harvey-Given Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
- Southern Railway Co. v. GrantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Breen v. BarfieldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Gage v. Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
- Williams v. Appliances, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
- Spiegel v. HaysCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1961
- Abney v. MB THOMAS AUTO SALES COMPANY., INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
- Hopkins v. West Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.