Atlanta Wrecking Co. v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlanta Wrecking Co. v. Harris

122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 37, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 239

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 15, 1924

Docket15288

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.E. 646 (Atlanta Wrecking Co. v. Harris) 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

Atlanta Wrecking Co. v. Harris, 122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 37, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

A motion to set aside a verdict, based on the ground that the ease was tried during the absence of the movant and its counsel, was without merit, when presented after the term at which the verdict was rendered, and when it failed to show what evidence was introduced upon the trial, or what evidence, if any, the movant then desired to introduce, or would introduce upon another trial, although it appeared that the movant was without actual notice of when tlie case was to be tried, and that the movant’s attorney, who did have such notice, was in attendance upon a sick relative in another city, it appearing that the attorney neither communicated nor attempted to communicate with the court in any manner touching his absence. Chapman v. Chattanooga Oil Mill Co., 146 Ga. 91 (90 S. E. 713). Especially is this true where the movant was the plaintiff in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

A motion to set aside a verdict, based on the ground that the ease was tried during the absence of the movant and its counsel, was without merit, when presented after the term at which the verdict was rendered, and when it failed to show what evidence was introduced upon the trial, or what evidence, if any, the movant then desired to introduce, or would introduce upon another trial, although it appeared that the movant was without actual notice of when tlie case was to be tried, and that the movant’s attorney, who did have such notice, was in attendance upon a sick relative in another city, it appearing that the attorney neither communicated nor attempted to communicate with the court in any manner touching his absence. Chapman v. Chattanooga Oil Mill Co., 146 Ga. 91 (90 S. E. 713). Especially is this true where the movant was the plaintiff in the case.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 646, 32 Ga. App. 37, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-wrecking-co-v-harris-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack