Adams v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams v. Hill

340 S.E.2d 27, 177 Ga. App. 492, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1463

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

Docket71508

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 340 S.E.2d 27 (Adams v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Hill, 340 S.E.2d 27, 177 Ga. App. 492, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Adams was defendant in this suit on a note. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Two days before the scheduled hearing, Adams’ attorney filed a motion for continuance, averring that “because of current problems with his health,” he was unable to appear in court and had been unable to prepare several documents in response to the plaintiff’s motion. He averred that to deny the motion for continuance would work a manifest injustice. A doctor’s letter attached to the motion described the attorney’s illness and said: “I believe it will be in his best interests and his clients [sic] that he take a leave of absence from any professional liabilities for at least three weeks.” The motion for continuance was denied and summary judgment granted to the plaintiff. Adams appeals the denial of continuance. Held:

Strict compliance with OCGA § 9-10-155 is required to obtain a continuance of a case proceeding. Scott v. State, 151 Ga. App. 840 (1) (262 SE2d 198). These requirements are that the party must swear that he cannot go safely to trial without the services of the absent counsel, that he expects his services at the next term, and that the application is not made for delay only. These are absolute requirements. See also OCGA § 9-10-166. None of these requirements was •fulfilled. As a rule, continuance on the ground of counsel’s illness is not favored. McLendon v. State, 123 Ga. App. 290, 296-297 (180 SE2d 567).

In all cases, the grant of a continuance is in the discretion of the trial judge (OCGA § 9-10-167), but where the statute is not complied with, no grounds for continuance exist. The trial court did not err in refusing a continuance in this cáse. In any event, the summary judgment was not appealed from and establishes the judgment in this case. See McLendon, supra, p. 295 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

Adams was defendant in this suit on a note. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Two days before the scheduled hearing, Adams’ attorney filed a motion for continuance, averring that “because of current problems with his health,” he was unable to appear in court and had been unable to prepare several documents in response to the plaintiff’s motion. He averred that to deny the motion for continuance would work a manifest injustice. A doctor’s letter attached to the motion described the attorney’s illness and said: “I believe it will be in his best interests and his clients [sic] that he take a leave of absence from any professional liabilities for at least three weeks.” The motion for continuance was denied and summary judgment granted to the plaintiff. Adams appeals the denial of continuance. Held:

Strict compliance with OCGA § 9-10-155 is required to obtain a continuance of a case proceeding. Scott v. State, 151 Ga. App. 840 (1) (262 SE2d 198). These requirements are that the party must swear that he cannot go safely to trial without the services of the absent counsel, that he expects his services at the next term, and that the application is not made for delay only. These are absolute requirements. See also OCGA § 9-10-166. None of these requirements was •fulfilled. As a rule, continuance on the ground of counsel’s illness is not favored. McLendon v. State, 123 Ga. App. 290, 296-297 (180 SE2d 567).

In all cases, the grant of a continuance is in the discretion of the trial judge (OCGA § 9-10-167), but where the statute is not complied with, no grounds for continuance exist. The trial court did not err in refusing a continuance in this cáse. In any event, the summary judgment was not appealed from and establishes the judgment in this case. See McLendon, supra, p. 295 (2).

Judgment affirmed.

Carley and Sognier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.E.2d 27, 177 Ga. App. 492, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 1463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-hill-gactapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack