Toccoa Electric Power Co. v. Panter
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.
In Orr v. Webb, 112 Ga. 806 (38 S. E. 98), a decision rendered by four Justices, it was held: “A bill of exceptions should on its face affirmatively and unequivocally show who are the parties thereto; and, in strictly good practice, the plaintiff, or plaintiffs, and the defendant, or defendants, therein should be expressly designated as such eis nominibus. . . The abbreviation fet al.,’ when used in a bill of exceptions, can not be held to designate any person or persons,” In the opinion it was said: "The *261recitals in a bill of exceptions should in ever}' instance be sufficiently clear and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Orr v. WebbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- McEachin v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Everhart v. Atlantic Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
- Farr v. FarrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Sistrunk v. PendletonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Patterson v. LauderbackCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1994
- Daniel v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Hancock v. Lizella Fruit FarmSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Lanier v. BaileySupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Poteet v. BeaverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.