Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

SPARKMAN et al. v. W. T. RAWLEIGH CO.

Opinion by PINKHAM, C.

The plaintiff below, opposing attorneys, and the issues are the same, and the evidence tendered by the defendants is in effect the same, as in the case of I. J. Gordon et al. v. W. T. Rawleigh Co., No. 14285, this day decided, infra, p. 235. The opinion and syllabus in that case are adopted as the opinion and syllabus in this case, and the judgment is affirmed.

Defendant in error in this case has asked for a judgment against the sureties on the supersedeas bond filed herein, in the event the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, it appearing that judgment herein was superseded by a bond on which R. D. Pratt and J. H. Pruitt were sureties. Judgment is therefore rendered against the said sureties on the supersedeas bond.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SPARKMAN v. W. T. RAWLEIGH CO
(Apr 13, 1926)