Legal Opinion

Hayden v. Varnadore

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided October 14, 1953No. 18327, 18340Published

1Opinion of the Court

Worrill, Justice.

1. Counsel for the plaintiff in error in the main bill of exceptions failed to argue their case orally in the Supreme Court, or to file any brief therein, and therefore the main bill must be dismissed. Vann v. Wardlaw, 180 Ga. 573 (3) (179 S. E. 726).

2. Irrespective of whether the present case falls within the general rule that, where the main bill of exceptions is dismissed for want of prosecution in the Supreme Court, the cross-bill will be dismissed (Code § 6-901; Futch v. Olmstead, 172 Ga. 233 (2), 157 S. E. 277; Alexander Lumber Co. v. Bagley, 184 Ga. 352, 364 (2), 191…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. A. C. Alexander Lumber Co. v. BagleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
  2. Williams v. RagsdaleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
  3. Futch v. OlmsteadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1931
  4. Church v. PurcellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  5. Vann v. WardlawSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API