Cowart v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Cowart v. Smith

185 S.E. 819, 182 Ga. 511, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 475

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1936

DocketNo. 11295

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 S.E. 819 (Cowart v. Smith) 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

Cowart v. Smith, 185 S.E. 819, 182 Ga. 511, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 475 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Justice.

T. "When a case is sounded for trial, the parties shall immediately announce ready, or move to continue; if three minutes should elapse before the announcement or motion to continue, the plaintiff’s case will be dismissed, or the defendant’s plea stricken.” Code of 1933, § 24-3320. The court did not err in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution, or in refusing to reinstate it on the motion filed.

2. There is no merit in the contention that the petition should have been retained and submitted to a jury, despite the plaintiff’s failure to ap[512]*512pear and prosecute the action. Steam Laundry Co. v. Thompson, 91 Ga. 47 (3) (16 S. E. 198); Bateman v. Smith Gin Co., 98 Ga. 219 (25 S. E. 422); Green v. Green, 138 Ga. 581 (2) (75 S. E. 603); Strachan v. Wolfe, 2 Ga. App. 254 (58 S. E. 492); Woodall v. Exposition Cotton Mills, 31 Ga. App. 269 (120 S. E. 423). Sections 24-3366, 37-1101, 37-1104 of the Code of 1933, relied on by counsel for the plaintiff, do- not provide for such procedure.

No. 11295. May 15, 1936. Bourgeon Cowart, for plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Bell, Justice.

T. "When a case is sounded for trial, the parties shall immediately announce ready, or move to continue; if three minutes should elapse before the announcement or motion to continue, the plaintiff’s case will be dismissed, or the defendant’s plea stricken.” Code of 1933, § 24-3320. The court did not err in dismissing the suit for want of prosecution, or in refusing to reinstate it on the motion filed.

2. There is no merit in the contention that the petition should have been retained and submitted to a jury, despite the plaintiff’s failure to ap[512]*512pear and prosecute the action. Steam Laundry Co. v. Thompson, 91 Ga. 47 (3) (16 S. E. 198); Bateman v. Smith Gin Co., 98 Ga. 219 (25 S. E. 422); Green v. Green, 138 Ga. 581 (2) (75 S. E. 603); Strachan v. Wolfe, 2 Ga. App. 254 (58 S. E. 492); Woodall v. Exposition Cotton Mills, 31 Ga. App. 269 (120 S. E. 423). Sections 24-3366, 37-1101, 37-1104 of the Code of 1933, relied on by counsel for the plaintiff, do- not provide for such procedure.

No. 11295. May 15, 1936. Bourgeon Cowart, for plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E. 819, 182 Ga. 511, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowart-v-smith-ga-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack