Whitehead v. Alewine

Supreme Court of Georgia

Whitehead v. Alewine

82 S.E.2d 703, 210 Ga. 737, 1954 Ga. LEXIS 428

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 13, 1954

Docket18615

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 S.E.2d 703 (Whitehead v. Alewine) 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

Whitehead v. Alewine, 82 S.E.2d 703, 210 Ga. 737, 1954 Ga. LEXIS 428 (Ga. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

The bill of exceptions in this case designates “Janie Lee Whitehead, executrix of the last will and testament of C. P. Alewine, deceased, plaintiff in error,” no one being designated as defendants in error, and the only acknowledgment of service is by a named person as “Attorney for defendants in error,” without naming them. An examination of the record discloses that the attorney signing this acknowledgment appeared in the trial court for only three of the seven persons named and served as defendants in the original petition, and all seven of whom are affected by the judgment excepted to. It thus appears from the record that there were other interested parties in the court below who have not been made parties to the bill of exceptions and served with copy of the same. Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction, and will dismiss the writ of error, even in the absence of a motion to do so on that ground. Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370 (80 S. E. 2d 292); Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83 (1) (65 S. E. 2d 151); Lanier v. Bailey, 206 Ga. 161 (2) (56 S. E. 2d 515); Echols v. Southern Mining &c. Co., 200 Ga. 608 (37 S. E. 2d 703); Poteet v. Beaver, 180 Ga. 383 (178 S. E. 721); Orr v. Webb, 112 Ga. 806 (38 S. E. 98).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hawkins, Justice.

The bill of exceptions in this case designates “Janie Lee Whitehead, executrix of the last will and testament of C. P. Alewine, deceased, plaintiff in error,” no one being designated as defendants in error, and the only acknowledgment of service is by a named person as “Attorney for defendants in error,” without naming them. An examination of the record discloses that the attorney signing this acknowledgment appeared in the trial court for only three of the seven persons named and served as defendants in the original petition, and all seven of whom are affected by the judgment excepted to. It thus appears from the record that there were other interested parties in the court below who have not been made parties to the bill of exceptions and served with copy of the same. Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction, and will dismiss the writ of error, even in the absence of a motion to do so on that ground. Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370 (80 S. E. 2d 292); Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83 (1) (65 S. E. 2d 151); Lanier v. Bailey, 206 Ga. 161 (2) (56 S. E. 2d 515); Echols v. Southern Mining &c. Co., 200 Ga. 608 (37 S. E. 2d 703); Poteet v. Beaver, 180 Ga. 383 (178 S. E. 721); Orr v. Webb, 112 Ga. 806 (38 S. E. 98).

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E.2d 703, 210 Ga. 737, 1954 Ga. LEXIS 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitehead-v-alewine-ga-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack