Sistrunk v. Lipscomb-Weyman-Connors Co., 175 S.E. 12 (Ga. 1934). · Go Syfert
Search
Sistrunk v. Lipscomb-Weyman-Connors Co., 175 S.E. 12 (Ga. 1934). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alan Wesley Skipper v. Jennifer Paul (gactapp, 2020-07-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Alan Wesley Skipper v. Jennifer Paul (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hardeman v. Roberts, 214 Ga. App. 484, 486 ( 448 SE2d 254 ) (1994) (special concurrence) (citing Mercer v. Nowell, 179 Ga. 37, 40 ( 175 SE 12 ) (1934) for proposition that “[a] defect which would be amendable before verdict would be cured by the judgment in the case.”) “When the irregularities in the record can be corrected by amendment, the judgment will not be arrested or set aside.
discussed Cited "see" Alan Wesley Skipper v. Jennifer Paul
Ga. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hardeman v. Roberts, 214 Ga. App. 484, 486 ( 448 SE2d 254 ) (1994) (special concurrence) (citing Mercer v. Nowell, 179 Ga. 37, 40 ( 175 SE 12 ) (1934) for proposition that “[a] defect which would be amendable before verdict would be cured by the judgment in the case.”) “When the irregularities in the record can be corrected by amendment, the judgment will not be arrested or set aside.
Sistrunk
v.
Lipscomb-Weyman-Connors Company
No. 10001.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jun 14, 1934.
175 S.E. 12
J. E. Sistrunk and C. D. Driskell, for plaintiff., Jones, Evins, Powers & Jones, S. N. Evins Jr., W. B. Cody, Harold Hirsch, and Marion Smith, for defendants.
Bell.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
Bell, J.

1. All persons who are interested in sustaining the judgment of the court below are necessary parties in the Supreme Court, and must be made parties defendant to the bill of exceptions and served with a copy thereof. Civil Code (1910), §§ 6160, 6176; Benson v. Lewis, 176 Ga. 20 (166 S. E. 835); Emanuel Farm Co. v. Batts, 176 Ga. 552 (168 S. E. 316).

2. A mere statement entered upon the bill of exceptions and signed by the plaintiff in error, to the effect that he has served a copy of the bill of exceptions upon counsel for one who was named as a defendant in error, without an affidavit as to such service, is not sufficient to show service upon such defendant in error. Civil Code (1910), § 6160; Bray v. Langley, 169 Ga. 733 (151 S. E. 376); Smith v. McKnight, 28 Ga. App. 732 (113 S. E. 48).

3. This being a case in which several persons were named as defendants in error in the bill of exceptions, and there being no sufficient evidence of service of. the bill of exceptions as to one of them, who was a party in the court below and who is interested in sustaining the judgment com[*49] plained of, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the bill of exceptions, and the writ of error must be dismissed. Malsby v. Shipp, 177 Ga. 54 (3) (169 S. E. 308).

No. 10001. June 14, 1934. J. E. Sistrunk and C. D. Driskell, for plaintiff. Jones, Evins, Powers & Jones, S. N. Evins Jr., W. B. Cody, Harold Hirsch, and Marion Smith, for defendants.

Writ of error dismissed.

All the Justices concur.