Henderson v. Williams
25 S.E. 395, 97 Ga. 709
Opinion
The facts appear in the reporter’s statement. A discussion of the law applicable is deemed unnecessary, for the reason that the opinion of Chief Justice Bleckley in Headen et al. v. Quillian et al., 92 Ga. 222, in principle covers fully and aptly the controlling points involved in the present case. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Henderson v. Williams, 25 S.E. 395, 97 Ga. 709 (Ga. 1896).
25 S.E. 395 (Henderson v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Love v. McManus
67 S.E.2d 218 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1951)
Gilmore v. Gilmore
41 S.E.2d 229 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Utah Oil Refining Co. v. Millard County Drainage Dist. No. 4
50 P.2d 774 (Utah Supreme Court, 1935)
Woodbery v. Atlas Realty Co.
98 S.E. 472 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Luquire v. Lee
49 S.E. 834 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Heath v. Miller
44 S.E. 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)
Clarke v. East Atlanta Land Co.
38 S.E. 323 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)
McMillan v. Cox
34 S.E. 341 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Allen v. Hughes
32 S.E. 927 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1899)
Bailie v. Carolina Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n
28 S.E. 274 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)
Simmons v. McKinlock
26 S.E. 88 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1896)