Bagley v. Shumate
This text of 57 S.E. 99 (Bagley v. Shumate) 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
Applications for continuance are, in all eases, in the sound legal discretion of the court, and are to be granted or refused as the ends of justice may require. Civil Code, §5138. Trial judges are vested with a sound legal discretion in the granting or refusal of a first new trial. Civil Code, §§5483, 5585. When a first new trial is granted upon the sole ground that the court erred in refusing a con[79]*79tinuance, all other grounds in the motion being abandoned at the hearing, the discretion of the judge exercised in granting the motion will not be controlled by the Supreme Court, unless it is made,to appear that there has been a manifest abuse of such discretion. No such abuse of discretion appears in the present case; on the contrary the interests of justice seem to require that there should be a new hearing.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 S.E. 99, 128 Ga. 78, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagley-v-shumate-ga-1907.