Aiken v. Carmichael
Opinion
1. The court did not err in denying an application for a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness, when the movant failed to show that such application was not made for the purpose of delay, although the showing in other respects may have been complete. Civil Code, §5129; Boggess v. Lowery, 78 Ga. 353.
2. This court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court refusing to continue a case upon the ground of the illness of counsel, when the latter ground was not submitted for the consideration of the court until after the motion referred to in the first headnote had been decided adversely to movant. “All grounds of motion for . . continuance must be urged and insisted upon at once. And after a decision upon [408]*408one or more grounds, no others afterwards urged shall be heard by the . court.” Civil Code, § 5675.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
56 S.E. 440 (Aiken v. Carmichael) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.