Logue v. Holleman
Court of Appeals of Georgia
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
- Weaver v. RobersonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
- Emanuel Farm Co. v. BattsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Malsby v. ShippSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Huey v. National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Stanley v. StembridgeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bedgood v. RogersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Blaylock v. WareCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
- Lake v. DelaperriereCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942