Cameron v. Sheppard
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Griffith (Ga. 1900)
- Mutual Building Loan &c. Co. v. Dickinson (Ga. 1900)
- Butler v. Kendrick (Ga. 1931)
- Camden National Bank v. Donaghey (Ark. 1920)
- Hodnett v. Douglass (Ga. 1906)
- Orr v. Webb (Ga. 1901)
- McCain v. Sutlive (Ga. 1900)
- Papworth v. Ryman (Ga. 1899)
- Rowland v. Fite (Ga. 1899)
- Inman, Smith & Co. v. Estes (Ga. 1898)
- Swift v. Thomas (Ga. 1897)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
A motion was made to dismiss this case for want of service on parties defendant, as appeared by the record. The only service was this :
“Due and legal service of the signing and certifying of this-bill-Pf exceptions hereby-acknowledged, and copy waived.
(Signed) O. E. Crisp,
B. B. Hinton, Hawkins & Hawkins, Att’ys for defts. in error.”
By the ruling of this court, the words “and others ” will not suffice to set out the defendants in error; but they must be named therein. None but those named are defendants in error. 4 Ga., 403.
True, the bill of exceptions may be amended by the re•cord, so as to set out in the bill the other defendants below, and they will then become defendants in error here, but not until then do they become defendants in error.
So when service was acknowledged, they were not defendants in error, and therefore service was not acknowledged for them. These principles will be found sustained by the following cases, and the writ of error must be dismissed; 2 Kelly, 79, 287, 408; 4 Ga., 403 ; 8 Peters, 526 ; 10 Wallace, 416, 582; 20 Ib., 152; 11 Wheaton, 414; 3 Dana, 454.
Writ of error dismissed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.