Hall v. Holman

84 S.E. 174, 15 Ga. App. 659, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 27
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 3, 1915
Docket5610
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 84 S.E. 174 (Hall v. Holman) 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
Hall v. Holman, 84 S.E. 174, 15 Ga. App. 659, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinion

Russell, 0. J.

1. Whether a judgment by default will be set aside or not is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the court by which it was rendered, and this court will not, as a general rule, interfere, unless such discretion has been grossly abused. Lambert v. Smith, 57 Ga. 25; Butler v. Strickland-Tillman Hardware Co., ante, 193.

2. That the defendant failed to file a plea at the appearance term “on account of a misunderstanding between client and counsel is unfortunate, but the fact presents no legal reason why the plaintiff, who acted but in the exercise of his right, should have the legal results of his suit set aside and again enter the field of litigation.” Moore v. Kelly, 109 Ga. 798-802 (35 S. E. 168).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

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

Related

Smith v. Mullinax
178 S.E.2d 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
McMURRIA MOTOR CO. INC. v. Bishop
72 S.E.2d 469 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Rawls v. Bowers
172 S.E. 687 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
84 S.E. 174, 15 Ga. App. 659, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-holman-gactapp-1915.