Kahn v. Hollis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Kahn v. Hollis

53 S.E. 95, 124 Ga. 537, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 776

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 22, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 53 S.E. 95 (Kahn v. Hollis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kahn v. Hollis, 53 S.E. 95, 124 Ga. 537, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 776 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, P. J.

A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions in this case was made by three of the defendants, Paul Hollis, T. G-. Hollis, and Claude Damour, upon the ground that all the parties had not been served. By reference to the foregoing statement of facts it will be seen that this motion must be sustained. All the parties defendant, with the exception of Eice, were joint owners of the realty which was the basis of the suit. The judgment of the court below, dismissing the entire case, is a judgment which these parties are all interested in sustaining. They are necessary parties to the bill of exceptions, and should each have been served. White v. Bleckley, 105 Ga. 173, Civil Code, §5562; Chason v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 496; Augusta Bank v. Merchants Bank, 104 Ga. 857, and citations.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices co.ncur.

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

Cobb, P. J.

A motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions in this case was made by three of the defendants, Paul Hollis, T. G-. Hollis, and Claude Damour, upon the ground that all the parties had not been served. By reference to the foregoing statement of facts it will be seen that this motion must be sustained. All the parties defendant, with the exception of Eice, were joint owners of the realty which was the basis of the suit. The judgment of the court below, dismissing the entire case, is a judgment which these parties are all interested in sustaining. They are necessary parties to the bill of exceptions, and should each have been served. White v. Bleckley, 105 Ga. 173, Civil Code, §5562; Chason v. Anderson, 119 Ga. 496; Augusta Bank v. Merchants Bank, 104 Ga. 857, and citations.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices co.ncur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.E. 95, 124 Ga. 537, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kahn-v-hollis-ga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack