Trulock v. Parker

89 S.E.2d 174, 211 Ga. 795, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 466
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 12, 1955
Docket19015
StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E.2d 174 (Trulock v. Parker) 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
Trulock v. Parker, 89 S.E.2d 174, 211 Ga. 795, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 466 (Ga. 1955).

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

This litigation was instituted by three lower riparian landowners to enjoin the defendant from diverting the waters from the regular channel of a non-navigable stream, and for damages. By amendment and without objection, Amos Bell, another lower riparian owner, was made a party plaintiff and he also prayed for injunctive relief and damages. At an interlocutory hearing the judge overruled the general demurrers to the petition as amended and granted a temporary injunction. The defendant excepted. The plaintiff Amos Bell is not named as a party in the bill of exceptions. Held:

1. It is always the duty of this court, with or without motion, to inquire into its jurisdiction and to dismiss a writ of' error where jurisdiction is lacking. Brockett v. Maxwell, 200 Ga. 213 (36 S. E. 2d 638), and citations.

2. All persons who are interested in sustaining the judgment excepted to, or who would be adversely affected by a judgment reversing it, are indispensable parties and must be made parties in the bill of exceptions, or the writ of error will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Code [796]*796§ 6-1202; Whitehead, v. Hogan Bros. Lumber Co., 205 Ga. 890 (55 S. E. 2d 371), and citations.

Argued July 12, 1955 Decided September 12, 1955. Conger & Conger, for plaintiff in error. Custer & Kirbo, Cain & Smith, contra.

3. In the instant case it affirmatively appeal's from the record that Amos Bell, who is not named as a party in the bill of exceptions, is interested in sustaining the judgment excepted to and would be adversely affected by a judgment reversing it. Consequently, this court is for that reason without jurisdiction and will dismiss the writ of error on its own motion.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Brockett v. Maxwell
36 S.E.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Whitehead v. Hogan Bros. Lumber Co.
55 S.E.2d 371 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 S.E.2d 174, 211 Ga. 795, 1955 Ga. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trulock-v-parker-ga-1955.