Day v. Bank of Sparks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Day v. Bank of Sparks

107 S.E. 272, 26 Ga. App. 718, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 611

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1921

Docket11997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 272 (Day v. Bank of Sparks) 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

Day v. Bank of Sparks, 107 S.E. 272, 26 Ga. App. 718, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

This is the second time this case has been before this [720]*720court. The case was decided by this court on December 16, 1919. See 24 Ga. App. 628 (101 S. E. 715). The judge of the city court of Nashville at the next term of that court and at each succeeding term was disqualified. On August 13, 1930, at the August term of that court, when a qualified judge, to wit, the judge of the city court of Douglas, was presiding over the city court of Nashville, the case came on for trial and a motion for a continuance was made by counsel for the defendant, on the ground that he had not had opportunity to prepare for trial. We do not think that there was any abuse of the discretion in refusing the continuance, especially in view of the fact that the case was within the jurisdiction of the city court of Nashville from the time its clerk received the remittitur from this court. Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929 (39 S. E. 330).

2. The charge of the court was not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence warranted the verdict.

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

Hill, J.

This is the second time this case has been before this [720]*720court. The case was decided by this court on December 16, 1919. See 24 Ga. App. 628 (101 S. E. 715). The judge of the city court of Nashville at the next term of that court and at each succeeding term was disqualified. On August 13, 1930, at the August term of that court, when a qualified judge, to wit, the judge of the city court of Douglas, was presiding over the city court of Nashville, the case came on for trial and a motion for a continuance was made by counsel for the defendant, on the ground that he had not had opportunity to prepare for trial. We do not think that there was any abuse of the discretion in refusing the continuance, especially in view of the fact that the case was within the jurisdiction of the city court of Nashville from the time its clerk received the remittitur from this court. Knox v. State, 113 Ga. 929 (39 S. E. 330).

2. The charge of the court was not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned. The evidence warranted the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 272, 26 Ga. App. 718, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-bank-of-sparks-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack