Drury v. Cameron & Barclay Co.
102 S.E. 373, 25 Ga. App. 15, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 554
Opinion
It appearing from the motion and the affidavit of counsel for the defendant in error that the judgment excepted to by the plaintiff in error has been paid by him, the' questions raised by the bill of exceptions have become moot, and the writ of error must be
Dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Drury v. Cameron & Barclay Co., 102 S.E. 373, 25 Ga. App. 15, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 554 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).
102 S.E. 373 (Drury v. Cameron & Barclay Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Imperial Body Works, Inc. v. National Claims Service, Inc.
279 S.E.2d 534 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. Hill
518 S.W.2d 754 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
City of Gainesville v. Loggins
158 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Almand v. Northern Assurance Co. Ltd.
73 S.E.2d 101 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Hall v. Alford
131 S.E. 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)