Farr v. State
37 S.E. 880, 112 Ga. 540, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 4
Opinion
When a case, because of the failure of counsel for the plaintiff in error to appear, either in person or by brief, and prosecute the same, is dismissed, it will not, even by consent, be reinstated upon a showing that such counsel mailed his briefs in time to reach the court before the case was called for a hearing. On the contrary, it must be held that such counsel took the risk of delays in the mail. See 24th Hule of Supreme Court, Civil Code, § 5621; Osborn v. Hale, 70 Ga. 731.
Motion to reinstate denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Farr v. State, 37 S.E. 880, 112 Ga. 540, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 4 (Ga. 1901).
37 S.E. 880 (Farr v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State of Georgia v. Jones
187 S.E.2d 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Ewing v. Whitehead
166 S.E.2d 769 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)
Griffith v. Mitchell
43 S.E. 742 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)