Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 18454
Decision Date | 10 February 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 18454,18454 |
Citation | 210 Ga. 370,80 S.E.2d 292 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | CHANDLER et al. v. FOOTE & DAVIES CO. et al. |
J. P. Swann, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
George Rush, James M. Roberts, Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. 'It is 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.' Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83(1), 65 S.E.2d 151, 152.
2. Lanier v. Bailey, 206 Ga. 161(2), 56 S.E.2d 515, 516.
3. 'An acknowledgment of service of the bill of exceptions by an attorney of record in the trial court as attorney for 'defendant in error' does not cover any person who was not, at the time such acknowledgment was entered upon the bill of exceptions, actually named or designated therein as a party defendant in error.' Hancock v. Lizella Fruit Farm, 184 Ga. 73, 190 S.E. 362.
4. Where as in this case, the bill of exceptions designates the defendants in error as 'Foote & Davies Company et al.,' and the only acknowledgment of service is by named attorneys as 'Counsel for de...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitehead v. Alewine
...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. Souther......
-
Jones v. Mangum
...who have not waived service, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Lanier b. Bailey, 206 Ga. 161, 56 S.E.2d 515; Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370, 80 S.E.2d 292; Whitehead v. Alewine, 210 Ga. 737, 82 S.E.2d Writ of error dismissed. All the Justices concur. ...
-
Kirby v. Woods
...dismiss a writ of error where jurisdiction is lacking.' Stewart v. Stewart, 208 Ga. 83, 84(1), 65 S.E.2d 151, 152; Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370, 80 S.E.2d 292. 2. 'All parties who are interested in sustaining the judgment of the court below, or who would be affected by a judg......
-
Zimmerman v. Osburn, 18967
...therein as a party defendant in error.' Hancock v. Lizella Fruit Farm, 184 Ga. 73, 190 S.E. 362. See also Chandler v. Foote & Davies Co., 210 Ga. 370(3), 80 S.E.2d 292. 4. 'No party being designated in the bill of exceptions as defendant in error, the writ of error must be dismissed.' Fowle......