Harrison v. Tate

27 S.E. 179, 100 Ga. 317, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 49
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided January 21, 1897·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

The discretion of the trial judge in reinstating at the -same term of its dismissal a case which had been -dismissed because of a want of prosecution will not be controlled, unless it h-as been manifestly abused. Under the facts of the present case, the discretion of the co-ur't was not improperly exercised..

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring. 'Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiffs in error. Anderson, Felder & Davis, contra.

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

Harrison v. Tate, 27 S.E. 179, 100 Ga. 317, 1897 Ga. LEXIS 49 (Ga. 1897).

27 S.E. 179 (Harrison v. Tate) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kinney v. Miller
150 S.E.2d 723 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Carolina Tree Service, Inc. v. Cartledge
99 S.E.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Brooks v. Brooks
165 S.E. 106 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Shore v. Brown
91 S.E. 909 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Southern Railway Co. v. Empire Printing & Box Co.
47 S.E. 542 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)