Jones v. Mangum
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Duckworth, Chief Justice.
Both the bill of exceptions and the record in this case point out that there was more than one caveator to the will, and the bill of exceptions designates the defendants in error as “Curtis Mangum et al.,” but only the attorney for Curtis Mangum acknowR edges service of the bill of exceptions. The court also in its charge to the jury points out that there were two separate caveats filed, and the verdict of the jury was “against the propounder in the probation of this will.” It thus conclusively appears that there were other caveators who have not been made parties to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lanier v. BaileySupreme Court of Georgia · 1949
- Chandler v. FOOTE & DAVIES COMPANYSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
- Whitehead v. AlewineSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954