Denmond v. Hillyer

Supreme Court of Georgia

Denmond v. Hillyer

59 S.E. 806, 129 Ga. 698, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 553

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 21, 1907

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 S.E. 806 (Denmond v. Hillyer) 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

Denmond v. Hillyer, 59 S.E. 806, 129 Ga. 698, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 553 (Ga. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where upon the call of a ease counsel entered upon the trial thereof without making any motion for a continuance or any suggestion of his client’s absence, or of his desire to have her present, or of the materiality of her evidence, it will not necessitate the grant of a new trial that she made affidavit that for several days before the trial she was ill and could not attend the trial and testify, or communicate with her counsel; especially where the statement contained in her affidavit as to the evidence which she would have given was of the vaguest and most general character.

2. Where property was levied on as belonging to a woman and was claimed by her daughter, and on the trial was found subject, newly discovered evidence of a witness, that while the claimant was working for wages, her mother bought the property in dispute and partly paid therefor from the proceeds of the daughter’s wages, did not require the grant of a new trial. Under the general issue of subject or not subject, such evidence would not likely change the result; nor does it appear that such facts were unknown to the claimant, though not communicated by ' her to her counsel.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices coneur, except Holden, J., who did. ■ not preside.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where upon the call of a ease counsel entered upon the trial thereof without making any motion for a continuance or any suggestion of his client’s absence, or of his desire to have her present, or of the materiality of her evidence, it will not necessitate the grant of a new trial that she made affidavit that for several days before the trial she was ill and could not attend the trial and testify, or communicate with her counsel; especially where the statement contained in her affidavit as to the evidence which she would have given was of the vaguest and most general character.

2. Where property was levied on as belonging to a woman and was claimed by her daughter, and on the trial was found subject, newly discovered evidence of a witness, that while the claimant was working for wages, her mother bought the property in dispute and partly paid therefor from the proceeds of the daughter’s wages, did not require the grant of a new trial. Under the general issue of subject or not subject, such evidence would not likely change the result; nor does it appear that such facts were unknown to the claimant, though not communicated by ' her to her counsel.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices coneur, except Holden, J., who did. ■ not preside.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.E. 806, 129 Ga. 698, 1907 Ga. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denmond-v-hillyer-ga-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack