Redman v. Hitchins

38 S.E. 819, 113 Ga. 380, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 274
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 27, 1901·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Fish, J.

No service of the bill of exceptions in this case was made upon the defendant in error. Attached to the bill of exceptions is an acknowledgment of service signed, “Dempsey & Mills.” There is nothing in the record to indicate who they are, or that they have ever had any connection whatever with the case, here or in the court below. There was no appearance for the defendant in error. The bill of exceptions must be served upon the opposite party or his attorney, or service of the same must be acknowledged. There being neither service nor acknowledgment thereof in the present case, we are constrained to dismiss the writ of error. See Smith v. Eckles & Abercrombie, 65 Ga. 326.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Redman v. Hitchins, 38 S.E. 819, 113 Ga. 380, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 274 (Ga. 1901).

38 S.E. 819 (Redman v. Hitchins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. Dinkins
71 S.E.2d 626 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1952)
Edwards v. Wall
113 S.E. 190 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922)
Ware v. Ware & Harper
92 S.E. 961 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)