Bagley v. Ledford

111 S.E. 827, 28 Ga. App. 517, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 650
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 26, 1922·No. 13016·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

A motion for a new trial was set down for hearing by the trial judge at a specified time. On the date set for the hearing no brief of the evidence was presented, and the hearing was continued to a fixed date in vacation. When the latter date arrived no brief of the evidence was presented to the court, and the only excuse for the failure of the movant to present the brief was that the reporter had not written out the evidence. The movant did not show such diligence as was required of him to secure the evidence from the reporter, and the court thereupon dismissed the motion for a new trial. Held: No abuse of the court’s [518]*518discretion is shown, and the judgment is affirmed. Bowles v. Malone, 139 Ga. 115 (76 S. E. 854); Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Memory, 126 Ga. 191 (55 S. E. 15).

Decided April 26, 1922. Motion for new trial; from Murray superior court- — Judge Tarver. September 24, 1921. H. H. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. C. N. King, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenhins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bagley v. Ledford, 111 S.E. 827, 28 Ga. App. 517, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

111 S.E. 827 (Bagley v. Ledford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Memory
55 S.E. 15 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Ryan
55 S.E. 21 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Bowles v. Malone
76 S.E. 854 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1912)