Legal Opinion

Hannah v. Lovelace-Young Lumber Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 21, 1925No. 4296PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBussell, C. J.

The questions raised by the demurrers, as well as the errors complained of on the trial, are so intimately connected as to be practically indivisible. We shall treat-them together, for they are thus argued by counsel for both sides. Counsel for defendant, in their brief state: “The questions involved, broadly stated, are three. First, was the bond taken such an one as the act of 1916 required? Second, was mandamus the proper remedy.in the ease at bar? Third, mandamus being the proper remedy and *858tlie petition having set out a case requiring the issuance of the writ, is the judgment of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. American Surety Co. v. Small Quarries Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  2. Ty Ty Consolidated School District v. Colquitt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  3. Powell v. Hall Hardware Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1923

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Douglas v. Board of EducationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
  2. American Surety Co. v. County of BibbSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
  3. Southern Surety Co. v. DawesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  4. Sheley v. Board of Public EducationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
  5. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Koppers Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1957

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

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

Powered by the Exa API