Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox

Supreme Court of Georgia

Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox

41 S.E. 40, 114 Ga. 913, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 832

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 Ga. 260 →

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 11, 1902·Published

Opinion

Lewis, J.

This was a motion to reinstate a motion for new trial, which had heen dismissed for want of prosecution. No sufficient reason appears for the failure of the movant’s counsel to appear in court and prosecute the motion for new trial. This court will, accordingly, not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to reinstate the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.

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

Lewis, J.

This was a motion to reinstate a motion for new trial, which had heen dismissed for want of prosecution. No sufficient reason appears for the failure of the movant’s counsel to appear in court and prosecute the motion for new trial. This court will, accordingly, not interfere with the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to reinstate the motion.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.

Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox, 41 S.E. 40, 114 Ga. 913, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 832 (Ga. 1902).

Pincite

41 S.E. 40 (Fulton Grocery Co. v. Maddox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.