Parker v. Paty
This text of 64 Ga. App. 428 (Parker v. Paty) 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.
Opinion
‘‘Where it appears from the record that parties to the litigation in the court below who are directly interested in having the judgment excepted to sustained by this court have not been made parties to the bill of exceptions, ‘this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the bill of exceptions,’ ” and upon motion made by the defendant in error the writ of error will be dismissed. Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54 (3) (169 S. E. 308) ; Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552 (168 S. E. 316); Teasley v. Cordell, 153 Ga. 397 (112 S. E. 287); Tillman v. Groover, 25 Ga. App. 118 (102 S. E. 879); Benson v. Lewis, 176 Ga. 20 (166 S. E. 835) ; Tillman v. Davis, 147 Ga. 206 (93 S. E. 201). Writ of error dismissed. Stephens, P. J.. and Sutton, J., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 Ga. App. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-paty-gactapp-1941.