Legal Opinion

Logue v. Holleman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided October 26, 1935No. 24662PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. While it is true, under the Code of 1933, § 6-1202, that all persons who are interested in sustaining the judgment of the trial court, or who would be affected by a judgment of reversal in the appellate court, must be made parties to the bill of exceptions (Poston v. Durham, 177 Ga. 870, 171 S. E. 870; Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54, 169 S. E. 308; Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552, 168 S. E. 316), yet it is also well settled that “where in a suit against two or more persons 'the verdict and judgment are adverse to the defendants, and only one of them malíes a motion for a new trial, the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Weaver v. RobersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  2. Emanuel Farm Co. v. BattsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  3. Malsby v. ShippSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  4. Huey v. National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  5. Stanley v. StembridgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Bedgood v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  2. Blaylock v. WareCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
  3. Lake v. DelaperriereCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942

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

Powered by the Exa API