Cumby v. New Albany Box & Basket Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cumby v. New Albany Box & Basket Co.

200 S.E. 307, 58 Ga. App. 843, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 150

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 30, 1938

Docket27014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 200 S.E. 307 (Cumby v. New Albany Box & Basket Co.) 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

Cumby v. New Albany Box & Basket Co., 200 S.E. 307, 58 Ga. App. 843, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

In an application for a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness, it must be shown by the applicant, among other things, “that he expects he will be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court.” Code, § 81-1410. The motion for a continuance in the instant case was based on the absence of a witness; and, upon the hearing of the motion, the applicant failed to testify that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court. Because of this defect, the motion was properly overruled by the court. Simons v. Mathis, 17 Ga. App. 588 (1) (87 S. E. 845). It being stated in the brief of counsel for both parties that the only question here for the determination of this court is whether the overruling of the motion for a continuance was error, the remaining assignments of error are treated as abandoned, and the judgment is Affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

In an application for a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a witness, it must be shown by the applicant, among other things, “that he expects he will be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court.” Code, § 81-1410. The motion for a continuance in the instant case was based on the absence of a witness; and, upon the hearing of the motion, the applicant failed to testify that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of the witness at the next term of the court. Because of this defect, the motion was properly overruled by the court. Simons v. Mathis, 17 Ga. App. 588 (1) (87 S. E. 845). It being stated in the brief of counsel for both parties that the only question here for the determination of this court is whether the overruling of the motion for a continuance was error, the remaining assignments of error are treated as abandoned, and the judgment is Affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E. 307, 58 Ga. App. 843, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cumby-v-new-albany-box-basket-co-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack