Aiken v. Carmichael
This text of 56 S.E. 440 (Aiken v. Carmichael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
56 S.E. 440, 127 Ga. 407, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aiken-v-carmichael-ga-1907.