Parker v. Paty

64 Ga. App. 428
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 1, 1941
Docket28723
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Parker v. Paty, 64 Ga. App. 428 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Opinion

Eelton, J.

‘‘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.

Hardin & McCamy, for plaintiff. D. W. Mitchell, W. M. Henderson, for defendant.

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

Related

Tillman v. Davis
93 S.E. 201 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
Teasley v. Cordell
112 S.E. 287 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Benson v. Lewis
166 S.E. 835 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts
168 S.E. 316 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Malsby v. Shipp
169 S.E. 308 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Tillman v. Groover
102 S.E. 879 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 Ga. App. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-paty-gactapp-1941.