Barnes v. Macon & Northern Railroad

30 S.E. 883, 105 Ga. 495, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 614
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 7, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 30 S.E. 883 (Barnes v. Macon & Northern Railroad) 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.

Bluebook
Barnes v. Macon & Northern Railroad, 30 S.E. 883, 105 Ga. 495, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 614 (Ga. 1898).

Opinion

Fish, J.

1. Inasmuch as the statute expressly declares that the brief of evidence accompanying a motion for a new trial must be filed during the term at which the trial was had, one who seeks for leave to file such a brief after the expiration of the term as a matter of right, must obtain a clear and unequivocal order granting such leave; and inasmuch as it is frequently true that the purpose of a movant in procuring an order allowing additional time, after the expiration of a term, to “complete a motion” for a new trial, is simply to reserve the right of amending the grounds of the motion, an order which merely allows additional time for completing a motion will not, when construed by the judge who granted it as not embracing the privilege of filing a brief of evidence, be differently construed by' this court.

2. Accordingly a term order allowing one against whom a verdict had been rendered until the final hearing, in vacation, “to complete his motion for new trial,” will not, though it recites that it is impossible for the movant to make out and file a brief of evidence before the adjournment of the court, be here construed as extending the time for filing the brief beyond the expiration of the term, when the judge be[496]*496low rules it was not intended to have this effect. As an order of this kind, notwithstanding such recital, does not, as it should do, expressly reserve or grant any right as to the filing of such brief, and is therefore, at least to some extent, ambiguous, the trial judge must be left free to so deal with it as to carry out its true intent and meaning as understood by him. See Cohen v. Lester, 103 Ga. 565.

Argued April 26, Decided June 7, 1898. Motion for new trial. Before Judge Butt. Jones superior court. October term, 1897. B. L. Berner, J. C. Barron and Johnson & Johnson, for plaintiffs. B. V. Hardeman and Hill, Harris & Birch, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Related

Williamson v. State
115 S.E.2d 237 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Toney v. Webb
46 S.E.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)
Conwell v. Price
24 S.E.2d 851 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Arledge v. Southeastern Stages Inc.
14 S.E.2d 463 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)
Humphries v. Morris
175 S.E. 242 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1934)
Albritton v. Tygart
71 S.E. 512 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Baxter & Co. v. Camp
59 S.E. 283 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Pinnebad v. Pinnebad
58 S.E. 879 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Gould v. Johnston & Co.
51 S.E. 608 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Brown v. Richards
40 S.E. 224 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 S.E. 883, 105 Ga. 495, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnes-v-macon-northern-railroad-ga-1898.