Legal Opinion

Sistrunk v. Lipscomb-Weyman-Connors Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 14, 1934No. 10001PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. All persons who are interested in sustaining the judgment of the court below are necessary parties in the Supreme Court, and must be made parties defendant to the bill of exceptions and served with a copy thereof. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6160, 6176; Benson v. Lewis, 176 Ga. 20 (166 S. E. 835); Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552 (168 S. E. 316).

2. A mere statement entered upon the bill of exceptions and signed by the plaintiff in error, to the effect that he has served a copy of the bill of exceptions upon counsel for one who was named as a defendant in error, without an affidavit as to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Emanuel Farm Co. v. BattsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  2. Malsby v. ShippSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  3. Benson v. LewisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
  4. Smith v. McKnight Bros.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
  5. Bray v. LangleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1930

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Howard v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1935
  2. Conley Housing Corp. v. ColemanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  3. Hall Motors Inc. v. Decatur Lincoln Mercury Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
  4. White v. State Life Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API