Arnold v. Pines

190 S.E. 383, 55 Ga. App. 361, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 98
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 3, 1937·No. 25901·Published

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

1. Where, in support of a motion for continuance on the ground of absence of the defendant on account of sickness, the only evidence tending to show the defendant’s inability to be present in court was an unsworn statement by a physician, and it appears that the absent defendant had.no knowledge of the dealings of the. plaintiff, and therefore it does not appear that had the defendant been present the ease which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff would have been different, it does not appear that the court, abused its discretion in overruling the motion. Smith v. Williamson, 29 Ga. App. 103 (114 S. E. 86); Covington v. Case Threshing Machine Co., 26 Ga. App. 781 (107 S. E. 370).

2. This was a suit to foreclose a laborer’s lien. The evidence authorized the verdict for the plaintiff. No error appears.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., conour.

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

Arnold v. Pines, 190 S.E. 383, 55 Ga. App. 361, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 98 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

190 S.E. 383 (Arnold v. Pines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Covington v. Case Threshing Machine Co.
107 S.E. 370 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Smith v. Williamson
114 S.E. 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)