Dalton v. Ralph E. Mills Co.

1 S.E.2d 76, 59 Ga. App. 418, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 43
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 30, 1939·No. 27268·Published

Opinion

Sxjtton, J.

1. Where a bill of exceptions fails to show on its face who is defendant in error, the writ of error must, on motion, be dismissed. Edwards v. Wall, 153 Ga,. 776 (113 S. E. 190); Fowler v. Wheeler, 176 Ga. 189 (167 S. E. 107); Emmanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552 (168 S. E. 316); Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54 (169 S. E. 308); Poteet v. Beaver, 180 Ga. 383 (178 S. E. 721); Vandivere v. Smith, 183 Ga. 326 (188 S. E. 540); Federal Deposit Ins. Cor. v. Thompson, 54 Ga. App. 611 (188 S. E. 737).

2. An acknowledgment of service of the bill of exceptions by an attorney of record in the trial court, as attorney for named parties, will not cure the defect above stated. Poteet v. Beaver; Vandivere v. Smith, supra.

Writ or error dismissed.

Stephens, P. J., and Pellon, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dalton v. Ralph E. Mills Co., 1 S.E.2d 76, 59 Ga. App. 418, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 43 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

1 S.E.2d 76 (Dalton v. Ralph E. Mills Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Edwards v. Wall
113 S.E. 190 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Fowler v. Wheeler
167 S.E. 107 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts
168 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Malsby v. Shipp
169 S.E. 308 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Poteet v. Beaver
178 S.E. 721 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Vandivere v. Smith
188 S.E. 540 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Thompson
188 S.E. 737 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)