Hix v. Gully, 38 S.E. 399 (Ga. 1901). · Go Syfert
Hix v. Gully, 38 S.E. 399 (Ga. 1901). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
34 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chapman v. Giles (ga, 1953-01-12)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chapman v. Giles
Ga. · 1953 · confidence medium
In Dent v. Merriam, 113 Ga. 83, 84 ( 38 S. E. 334 ), this court said: “The court below unquestionably erred in ruling that the suit was improperly brought because instituted by next friend instead of by guardian.
cited Cited "see" Stewart v. Stewart
Ga. Ct. App. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Dent v. Merriam, 113 Ga. 83 (3) ( 38 SE 334 ) and Crabb v. Stone, 106 Ga. App. 66 ( 126 SE2d 284 ) respectively.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hix
v.
Gully, for use, etc.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 26, 1901.
38 S.E. 399
1901 Ga. LEXIS 158
Asbury G. McCurry, for plaintiff in error., James H. Skelton, contra.
Fish.
Published
Fish, J.

1. No party in a civil case, save only a plaintiff who voluntarily dismisses his action before trial, can be lawfully made liable for the costs of any witness of the adverse party, who was not “ subpoenaed, sworn, and examined on the trial ” of the case. Civil Code, § 5392.

2. Section 5394 of the Civil Code does not warrant including in a judgment “ against the party dismissing, being nonsuited, or cast ” in a case, the fees of any witness for which such party is not liable under the provisions of section 5392 of the Civil Code.

3. When an officer issuing an execution attaches to the writ a separate paper having thereon a bill of the costs itemized in the manner prescribed in section 5394 of the Civil Code, this paper becomes a part of the execution itself, and the action thus taken by the clerk is equivalent to properly endorsing the bill of costs thereon.

4. In view of the law as above laid down, and of the evidence introduced at the trial, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in error was demanded. It was therefore erroneous to direct a verdict in favor of the other party.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.