Butler v. Georgia Agricultural Credit Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Butler v. Georgia Agricultural Credit Corp.

140 S.E. 426, 37 Ga. App. 390, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 709

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1927

Docket17907

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 140 S.E. 426 (Butler v. Georgia Agricultural Credit Corp.) 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

Butler v. Georgia Agricultural Credit Corp., 140 S.E. 426, 37 Ga. App. 390, 1927 Ga. App. LEXIS 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Upon the hearing of a motion for a continuance based both upon the absence of a party and the absence of his counsel, whore it nowhere appears that counsel can not safely go to trial without the presence of the absent party, or that the party seeking the continuance expects his counsel’s services at the next term of court, the showing is incomplete and presents no cause for a continuance. Civil Code (1910), §§ 5717, 5718.

2. The dismissal of a plea can not be a ground for a motion for a new trial. Tompkins v. American Land Co., 139 Ga. 377 (2) (77 S. E. 623).

3. The only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions being to the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a new trial, and the only grounds of the motion for a new trial being exceptions to the overruling of the defendant’s motion for a continuance and to the dismissal of the defendant’s plea, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial is, under the above rulings, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. ■ William B. Kent, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Green, A. N. Silas, contra.

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