Crider v. Haygood

105 S.E. 866, 26 Ga. App. 320
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1921·No. 11833·Published

Opinion

Hill, J.

Where counsel for the parties could not agree on a brief of the evidence, and the trial judge stated that “he would, not attempt to settle any differences or disputes between counsel, for the reason that he did not remember the evidence, the case having been tried fifteen months before,” there was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial, the “movant not presenting for approval and filing a correct brief of the evidence.” Williams v. Johnson, 94 Ga. 722 (19 S. E. 888); Lucas v. Cordele Guano Co., 106 Ga. 200 (32 S. E. 120) ; Baldwin County v. Crawford, 101 Ga. 185 (28 S. E. 621).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Crider v. Haygood, 105 S.E. 866, 26 Ga. App. 320 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

105 S.E. 866 (Crider v. Haygood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. Johnston
19 S.E. 888 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1894)
Baldwin County v. Crawford
28 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Lucas v. Cordele Guano Co.
32 S.E. 120 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)