Fullbright v. Vincent

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fullbright v. Vincent

89 S.E. 1055, 18 Ga. App. 520, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1084

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1916

Docket7121

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 1055 (Fullbright v. Vincent) 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

Fullbright v. Vincent, 89 S.E. 1055, 18 Ga. App. 520, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1084 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

1. It does not appear that the trial judge in refusing to grant the motion for a continuance abused the broad discretion vested in him by law.

2. A fair interpretation of the recitals in the bill of exceptions compels the conclusion that the affidavit which the court declined to allow the defendant to attach to his amended motion for a new trial was not oSered at the time the motion for a continuance was made, and therefore the court did not err in rejecting it. Southern Ry. Co. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858 (64 S. E. 1083).

[521]*521Decided September 15, 1916.

Complaint; from city court of Cartersville — Judge Moon. October 27, 1915.

W. T. Townsend, for plaintiff in error. Finley & Henson, contra.

3. The evidence sufficiently supported the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Jtidgment affirmed.

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