Greene v. Barron

47 S.E. 188, 119 Ga. 901, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 396
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 31, 1904·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Pish, P. J.

1. When in an action on a bond against the principal and his sureties the petition was dismissed on joint demurrer of all the defendants, the sureties were necessary parties defendant to a bill of exceptions sued out by the plaintiff, alleging error upon the judgment sustaining such demurrer and dismissing the petition. Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 111 Ga. 551, 556-557, and cit.

2. Where persons who are essential parties defendant to a bill of exceptions are neither named nor designated therein as such, and the only attempt to do so is by using with reference to them the abbreviation “ et al.,” following the name of one who is a proper defendant in error, a motion to dismiss the writ of error for want of necessary parties thereto will be sustained. Farr v. Farr, 113 Ga. 577.

3. An acknowledgment of service upon a bill of exceptions does not relate to or bind any person not actually named or sufficiently designated therein as a defendant in error when the acknowledgment is entered. Orr v. Webb, 112 Ga. 806 (3); Sears v. Jeffords, ante, 821.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Greene v. Barron, 47 S.E. 188, 119 Ga. 901, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 396 (Ga. 1904).

47 S.E. 188 (Greene v. Barron) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hunter v. Hall
4 S.E.2d 69 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Moore & Son v. Nesmith Lumber Co.
89 S.E. 169 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Rozier v. Mandle
56 S.E. 428 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
McGregor v. Witham
56 S.E. 55 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)