Farmers State Bank v. Maddox Coffee Co.
142 S.E. 198, 37 Ga. App. 804, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 629
Opinion
A motion for a new trial, being a motion addressed to the sound discretion of the court, ought not to be sustained upon the ground that the movant was not present in court at the time of the trial, where the absence was not due to accident or adventitious circumstance; the inquiry in such a case being limited to questions of due diligence, and not extending to a consideration of the merits of the proposed detense. Dor this reason the court erred in granting the motion for a new trial in this case.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Farmers State Bank v. Maddox Coffee Co., 142 S.E. 198, 37 Ga. App. 804, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 629 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).
142 S.E. 198 (Farmers State Bank v. Maddox Coffee Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Brawner v. Wilkins
150 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)