Arnold v. Pines

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Arnold v. Pines

190 S.E. 383, 55 Ga. App. 361, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 98

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1937

Docket25901

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.E. 383 (Arnold v. Pines) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E. 383, 55 Ga. App. 361, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-v-pines-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack