Tucker v. Wimpey

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tucker v. Wimpey

116 S.E. 315, 155 Ga. 118, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 20

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1923

DocketNo. 3221

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 S.E. 315 (Tucker v. Wimpey) 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

Tucker v. Wimpey, 116 S.E. 315, 155 Ga. 118, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 20 (Ga. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

Under the ruling made in Patterson v. Lemon, 50 Ga. 231, a decision rendered in October, 1872, referring to a sale which occurred on the first Tuesday in October, 1867, which decision was followed ' in the case of King v. Cabaniss, 81 Ga. 661 (7 S. E. 620), and which was by a full bench of three Justices, and was older than the eases of Power v. Shingler, 137 Ga. 157 (72 S. E. 1094), and Hawks v. Smith, 141 Ga. 422 (81 S. E. 200), and therefore controlling, the deed rejected was legal, and the trial judge erred in refusing to admit it in evidence, and in granting a nonsuit. There was no intimation in the cases of Poicer v. Shingler, and Hawks v. Smith, supra, that there was a formal request to review and overrule the decisions in the 50 Ga. and 81 Ga., supra; and those older decisions, not having been reviewed and overruled, are controlling, and the later cases will not be followed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur except Bech, P. J., dissenting. M. Kunz and Hall, Grice & Bloch, for plaintiffs. Duncan & Nunn and Byals & Anderson, for defendants.

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

Hill, J.

Under the ruling made in Patterson v. Lemon, 50 Ga. 231, a decision rendered in October, 1872, referring to a sale which occurred on the first Tuesday in October, 1867, which decision was followed ' in the case of King v. Cabaniss, 81 Ga. 661 (7 S. E. 620), and which was by a full bench of three Justices, and was older than the eases of Power v. Shingler, 137 Ga. 157 (72 S. E. 1094), and Hawks v. Smith, 141 Ga. 422 (81 S. E. 200), and therefore controlling, the deed rejected was legal, and the trial judge erred in refusing to admit it in evidence, and in granting a nonsuit. There was no intimation in the cases of Poicer v. Shingler, and Hawks v. Smith, supra, that there was a formal request to review and overrule the decisions in the 50 Ga. and 81 Ga., supra; and those older decisions, not having been reviewed and overruled, are controlling, and the later cases will not be followed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur except Bech, P. J., dissenting. M. Kunz and Hall, Grice & Bloch, for plaintiffs. Duncan & Nunn and Byals & Anderson, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 315, 155 Ga. 118, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-wimpey-ga-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack