Co-operative Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews

Supreme Court of Georgia

Co-operative Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews

31 S.E. 40, 105 Ga. 506, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 639

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 22, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 S.E. 40 (Co-operative Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews) 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

Co-operative Manufacturing Co. v. Andrews, 31 S.E. 40, 105 Ga. 506, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 639 (Ga. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Tisi-i, J.

1. Where by an order duly passed in term the movant in a motion for a new trial was given until a designated date in vacation within which to file a brief of evidence, there being no limitation in the order as to the time of approving such brief, and a brief was actually filed but not approved within the prescribed time, it was in the discretion of the judge to approve it afterwards or to refuse to do so, and it was error for him to hold that he had no such discretion. Anderson v. McLean & Co., 94 Ga. 798.

2. In such a case, it was competent for the judge, at the hearing of the motion, to allow the document thus filed to be amended, even though the amendment might consist in substituting therefor a more condensed statement of its material contents. See Lewis v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 94 Ga. 574; Hood v. Culver, 95 Ga. 120.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Tisi-i, J.

1. Where by an order duly passed in term the movant in a motion for a new trial was given until a designated date in vacation within which to file a brief of evidence, there being no limitation in the order as to the time of approving such brief, and a brief was actually filed but not approved within the prescribed time, it was in the discretion of the judge to approve it afterwards or to refuse to do so, and it was error for him to hold that he had no such discretion. Anderson v. McLean & Co., 94 Ga. 798.

2. In such a case, it was competent for the judge, at the hearing of the motion, to allow the document thus filed to be amended, even though the amendment might consist in substituting therefor a more condensed statement of its material contents. See Lewis v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 94 Ga. 574; Hood v. Culver, 95 Ga. 120.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.E. 40, 105 Ga. 506, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/co-operative-manufacturing-co-v-andrews-ga-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack