Frank & Co. v. Horkan

49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 38, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 107
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 30, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 S.E. 800 (Frank & Co. v. Horkan) 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
Frank & Co. v. Horkan, 49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 38, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 107 (Ga. 1905).

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. The death of a prominent member of the bar shortly before the time for convening a term of a court governed by the same laws and rules of pleading, practice, and procedure as the superior court, is not such cause as will legally authorize the judge in vacation to adjourn the term of the court. Civil Code, §§ 4342-4344 ; Hoye v. State, 39 Ga. 718.

2. Where a judge in vacation passed an illegal order adjourning the next term of court, an$l, in accordance with such order, that term was not held at the regular time, in a case in which such term was the appearance term the [39]*39defendant may file his plea or answer as late as the following term of the court or at any time prior thereto. Bowden v. Hatcher, 83 Ga. 78.

Argued December 17, 1904. — Decided January 30, 1905. Complaint. Before Judge Griffin. City court of Moultrie. August 5, 1904. Dessau, Harris & Harris and J. A. Wilkes, for plaintiffs. • John D. Pope and Shipp & Kline, for defendant.

3. Where the May term of the court was the appearance term of the case, but was illegally adjourned until June, at which time the defendant filed his answer, the next regular term of the court being in August, such answer was in time. It was therefore erroneous for the court, several terms later, to strike such answer as having been filed too late ; and the court properly corrected this error when, on the same day, the defendant was allowed to refile his answer.

4. Questions not referred to in the brief for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned.

Judgment on main bill of exceptions affirmed; cross bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Walker v. O'Connor
97 S.E. 276 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 38, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-co-v-horkan-ga-1905.