Flury v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flury v. State

116 S.E.2d 346, 102 Ga. App. 393, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 632

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 16, 1960

Docket38447

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 S.E.2d 346 (Flury v. State) 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

Flury v. State, 116 S.E.2d 346, 102 Ga. App. 393, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankum, Judge.

Where, as in the instant case, a motion for a new trial was filed within the time provided by law and during the term of court in which the verdict was rendered and which motion included an order setting a hearing in time of vacation, the term is extended for the case until the date named. McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Barrett, 72 Ga. App. 161 (33 S. E. 2d 528). A written order must be taken for a further extension of time for the hearing beyond that set in the original order (Napier v. Heilker, 115 Ga. 168, 41 S. E. 689; Atlanta K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Strickland, 114 Ga. 998, 41 S. E. 501; Shepherd v. State, 79 Ga. App. 694, 54 S. E. 2d 503), or the motion goes over to the next regular term by operation of law. Hardin v. Manry, 210 Ga. 747 (82 S. E. 2d 845); Perry v. State, 12 Ga. App. 573 (77 S. E. 879). See Code § [394]*39470-302. The original order in the instant case set the hearing on the motion for a new trial for April 21, 1960, a day in vacation. At such date the trial judge entered an order continuing the hearing to May 5, 1960. Thereafter, the next regular term of the Laurens Superior Court, as fixed by statute, would have convened on the fourth Monday of July, 1960. No order appears in the record continuing the hearing from May 5, 1960, to May 19, 1960, at which time the trial judge denied the motion for a new trial without notice to and in the absence of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. There appears no application for a hearing by either party under the provisions of Code §§ 24-2618 and 24-2619. The trial judge being without jurisdiction to enter the order denying the motion for a new trial, the ruling must be reversed and set aside.

Decided September 16, 1960. J. A. Merritt, for plaintiff in error. Harold E. Ward, Solicitor-General, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Frankum, Judge.

Where, as in the instant case, a motion for a new trial was filed within the time provided by law and during the term of court in which the verdict was rendered and which motion included an order setting a hearing in time of vacation, the term is extended for the case until the date named. McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co. v. Barrett, 72 Ga. App. 161 (33 S. E. 2d 528). A written order must be taken for a further extension of time for the hearing beyond that set in the original order (Napier v. Heilker, 115 Ga. 168, 41 S. E. 689; Atlanta K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Strickland, 114 Ga. 998, 41 S. E. 501; Shepherd v. State, 79 Ga. App. 694, 54 S. E. 2d 503), or the motion goes over to the next regular term by operation of law. Hardin v. Manry, 210 Ga. 747 (82 S. E. 2d 845); Perry v. State, 12 Ga. App. 573 (77 S. E. 879). See Code § [394]*39470-302. The original order in the instant case set the hearing on the motion for a new trial for April 21, 1960, a day in vacation. At such date the trial judge entered an order continuing the hearing to May 5, 1960. Thereafter, the next regular term of the Laurens Superior Court, as fixed by statute, would have convened on the fourth Monday of July, 1960. No order appears in the record continuing the hearing from May 5, 1960, to May 19, 1960, at which time the trial judge denied the motion for a new trial without notice to and in the absence of the plaintiff in error or his counsel. There appears no application for a hearing by either party under the provisions of Code §§ 24-2618 and 24-2619. The trial judge being without jurisdiction to enter the order denying the motion for a new trial, the ruling must be reversed and set aside.

Decided September 16, 1960. J. A. Merritt, for plaintiff in error. Harold E. Ward, Solicitor-General, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E.2d 346, 102 Ga. App. 393, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flury-v-state-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack