Rogers v. Hoskins
| Decision Date | 31 August 1853 |
| Docket Number | No. 25.,25. |
| Citation | 14 Ga. 166 |
| Parties | Shepherd Rogers et al., Executors, plaintiffs in error. vs. Malinda A. Hoskins, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Application for Dower, in Houston Superior Court. Decided by Judge Powers, April Term, 1853.
Harrison D. Hoskins, of Houston county, having departed this life, his widow, Malinda A. Hoskins, made her application to the Superior Court of the county, for the assignment of dower. The notice to the executors was objected to, because it did not state the name of the person in whose behalf the application was to be made; and also, that it was served on but one of the two executors of the deceased.
The notice was in the following words:
Georgia, Houston County.
To Shepherd Rogers and James Alford, Executors upon the estate of Harrison D. Hoskins, deceased:
You are hereby notified that I shall apply to the next Superior Court, to be held in and for said county, on the fourth Monday in April next, for the appointment of Commissioners to admeasure, lay off and assign Dower to me, in and to lots of land Nos. 237 and 248, in the lower fifth district of said county, agreeably to the Statutes, in such cases made and provided.
WARREN & HUMPHREYS,
Petitioner's Attorneys.
March 24, 1853.
This notice was served on Shepherd Rogers alone. The exceptions were overruled by the Court; and an order granted, appointing commissioners—to which order, the executors excepted.
After the signing the bill of exceptions, and filing the same in the Clerk\'s office of Houston county, the application for dower was dismissed by the petitioner.
Rogers, for plaintiff in error.
Warren & Humphries, for defendant.
By the Court.—Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
A notice in the name of nobody, is no notice.
Both executors are joined in the notice. This was right. Both should have been served—they were not. This was wrong.
Judgment reversed.
[This case was up subsequently, see 15 Ga. 270.]
NOTICE.. "Any writing importing an assertion of the lien, which came to the hands of the officer at or before the sale, was a sufficient notice to hold up the money, if the purpose of a more regular and direct notice was accomplished, and if the lien was afterwards, while the money was in court, urged as a claim upon the fund." London, Assignee, v. Coleman, 59 Ga. 653 (2), 659.
PENDENCY OF FORMER PETITION FOR DOWER, CAUSE OF ABATEMENT. "Plea of the pendency of a prior suit, for the same cause of action, and between the same parties, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Esteb
...notice, it must be given by one interested in the property, and in the course of the treaty for the purchase. 2 Sugd. 537, 538; Rogers v. Hukins, 14 Ga. 166. Flying reports are many times fables, and if admitted for sufficient notice, the inheritance of every man might easily be slandered. ......
-
Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Star Photo Finishing Co., s. 44877
...or under statutory provisions is generally effective when given in the form, at the time and in the manner required. Cf. Rogers v. Hoskins, 14 Ga. 166; Pritchard v. Johnson & Calhoun, 60 Ga. 288; Georgia R. & Banking Co. v. Haas, 127 Ga. 187(1), 56 S.E. 313; Felton Beauty Supply Co. v. Levy......
-
Dougherty v. Brown
... ... 38 Mo. 189; Whitely v. Platte County, 73 Mo. 30; ... Fravert v. Finfrock, 1 N.E. 875. "A notice, in ... the name of nobody, is no notice." Rogers v ... Hoskins, 14 Ga. 166; Larrabee v. Morrison, 15 ... Minn. 196; Pearson v. Lovejoy, 53 Barb. [N. Y.] 407 ... (2) In this class of ... ...
-
Lacik v. Colorado, T. & M. Ry. Co.
...65 P. 96. The unsigned statement or memoranda, served upon the owners of the land sought to be condemned, was not a notice. Rogers et al. v. Hoskins, 14 Ga. 166; Eaton v. Supervisors of Manitowoc County, 42 317. The vice in the condemnation proceeding is not merely an irregularity, but rela......