Kahn v. Hollis

53 S.E. 95, 124 Ga. 537, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 776
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided December 22, 1905·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

53 S.E. 95 (Kahn v. Hollis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. v. Watts
90 S.E.2d 52 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Continental Trust Co. v. Sabine Basket Co.
141 S.E. 664 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1928)
Northern Nevada Loan Assn. v. Cazier
239 P. 395 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1925)
Johnson v. McKelvin
105 S.E. 600 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1921)
Ray v. Hardman
92 S.E. 211 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Quitman Oil Co. v. Peacock
81 S.E. 908 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)