Johnson v. Estate of Farkas
96 S.E. 392, 22 Ga. App. 539, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 592
Opinion
A party defendant in error is essential to the prosecution of a writ of error, and where no one is named or otherwise disclosed by the bill of exceptions as defendant in error, the writ must necessarily be dismissed; for without a defendant in error there is no case. Ray v. Pease, 112 Ga. 675 (37 S. E. 875); Branch v. Mallory, 8 Ga. App. 797 (70 S. E. 177); Hendricks v. Rogers, 22 Ga. App. 357 (95 S. E. 1009); Knox v. Greenfield Estate, 7 Ga. App. 305 (66 S. E. 805).
Writ of error dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Johnson v. Estate of Farkas, 96 S.E. 392, 22 Ga. App. 539, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).
96 S.E. 392 (Johnson v. Estate of Farkas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Williamson v. Marchman
134 S.E. 625 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Kenney v. Walden
113 S.E. 61 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Farkas
107 S.E. 610 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)