Green v. Green

75 S.E. 603, 138 Ga. 581, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 617
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided August 17, 1912·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion to continue the case.

2. When the plaintiffs failed or refused to proceed with the trial after the overruling of the motion to continue, and offered no evidence, it was error to direct a verdict against them. The proper judgment was one of dismissal.

3. This will not require a reinstatement of the ease, or a new trial. But direction is given that the verdict and judgment thereon be vacated, and that in lieu thereof a judgment dismissing the case, with costs against the plaintiffs, be entered.

(a) The plaintiffs in error, having obtained a substantial modification of the judgment, are entitled to have judgment for the costs of bringing the case to this court and those accruing in this,court.

Judgment affirmed, with direction.

All the Justices concur.

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

Green v. Green, 75 S.E. 603, 138 Ga. 581, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 617 (Ga. 1912).

75 S.E. 603 (Green v. Green) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Smith
146 S.E.2d 721 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Murphey v. Brock
57 S.E.2d 588 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
Cowart v. Smith
185 S.E. 819 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Beasley Motor Co. v. Cowart
154 S.E. 458 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Anderson v. Beasley
151 S.E. 360 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1930)
Woodall v. Exposition Cotton Mills
120 S.E. 423 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)