Mackle Construction Co. v. Hart & Crouse Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mackle Construction Co. v. Hart & Crouse Co.

108 S.E. 818, 27 Ga. App. 405, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 930

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1921

Docket12233

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 108 S.E. 818 (Mackle Construction Co. v. Hart & Crouse Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mackle Construction Co. v. Hart & Crouse Co., 108 S.E. 818, 27 Ga. App. 405, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 930 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

Only the ruling stated in the first headnote need be discussed. Hart & Crouse Company sued Mackle Construction Company, Wynne Plumbing Company, and W. H. Wynne. Mackle Construction Company alone defended. There was a. verdict and judgment against all the parties. Mackle Construction Company, without joining the other defendants, made a motion for a new trial which was overruled, and it brought the ease to this court for review. The defendant in error 'filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error “for the reason that two parties defendant in the lower court who are interested in the final determination of this cause are not made parties in this court, and were not served with the bill of exceptions herein.” In Turner v. Newell, 129 Ga. 89 (1) (58 S. E. 657), citing Ruffin v. Paris, 75 Ga. 653, and Jordan v. Gaulden, 73 Ga. 191, it was held': “ Where, in a suit against two codefendants, the [406]*406verdict and judgment are adverse to the -defendants, and one of them makes a motion for a new trial, which is .overruled, the movant can except to the judgment overruling his motion, and bring the case to the Supreme Court without making the other defendant a party to the bill of exceptions; and a failure to do so will not work a dismissal of the writ of error.” Under this ruling the motion to dismiss the writ of error is without merit and is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

Only the ruling stated in the first headnote need be discussed. Hart & Crouse Company sued Mackle Construction Company, Wynne Plumbing Company, and W. H. Wynne. Mackle Construction Company alone defended. There was a. verdict and judgment against all the parties. Mackle Construction Company, without joining the other defendants, made a motion for a new trial which was overruled, and it brought the ease to this court for review. The defendant in error 'filed a motion to dismiss the writ of error “for the reason that two parties defendant in the lower court who are interested in the final determination of this cause are not made parties in this court, and were not served with the bill of exceptions herein.” In Turner v. Newell, 129 Ga. 89 (1) (58 S. E. 657), citing Ruffin v. Paris, 75 Ga. 653, and Jordan v. Gaulden, 73 Ga. 191, it was held': “ Where, in a suit against two codefendants, the [406]*406verdict and judgment are adverse to the -defendants, and one of them makes a motion for a new trial, which is .overruled, the movant can except to the judgment overruling his motion, and bring the case to the Supreme Court without making the other defendant a party to the bill of exceptions; and a failure to do so will not work a dismissal of the writ of error.” Under this ruling the motion to dismiss the writ of error is without merit and is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 818, 27 Ga. App. 405, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackle-construction-co-v-hart-crouse-co-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack