Parham v. Hill

Supreme Court of Georgia

Parham v. Hill

176 S.E. 613, 179 Ga. 636, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 361

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 11, 1934

DocketNo. 10363

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 S.E. 613 (Parham v. Hill) 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

Parham v. Hill, 176 S.E. 613, 179 Ga. 636, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 361 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

The defendant in error in the bill of exceptions moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the issues involved in the bill of exceptions have become moot. The defendant in error was the plaintiff in the superior court, and prevailed in the litigation which the plaintiffs in error seek to have reviewed. On June 12, 1934, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action, and on that day an order dismissing the suit was granted by the judge of the superior court, who directed that a copy of his judgment be transmitted to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the superior court under his official seal. The defendant in error has paid the cost. The plaintiffs in error were served with the motion to dismiss, and have filed no objection to the dismissal. In these circumstances no adjudication by the Supreme Court could affect the rights of either of the parties to the cause, and any judgment rendered by this court would therefore be vain and nugatory. The issues presented by the writ of error have become moot.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Russell, C. J.

The defendant in error in the bill of exceptions moved to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that the issues involved in the bill of exceptions have become moot. The defendant in error was the plaintiff in the superior court, and prevailed in the litigation which the plaintiffs in error seek to have reviewed. On June 12, 1934, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action, and on that day an order dismissing the suit was granted by the judge of the superior court, who directed that a copy of his judgment be transmitted to the Supreme Court by the clerk of the superior court under his official seal. The defendant in error has paid the cost. The plaintiffs in error were served with the motion to dismiss, and have filed no objection to the dismissal. In these circumstances no adjudication by the Supreme Court could affect the rights of either of the parties to the cause, and any judgment rendered by this court would therefore be vain and nugatory. The issues presented by the writ of error have become moot.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E. 613, 179 Ga. 636, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parham-v-hill-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack