Holloway v. Cochran

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holloway v. Cochran

82 S.E. 761, 15 Ga. App. 196, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 58

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1914

Docket5518

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 761 (Holloway v. Cochran) 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

Holloway v. Cochran, 82 S.E. 761, 15 Ga. App. 196, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 58 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Motions for continuance are so largely addressed to the discretion of the trial judge that this court can not hold that in the present case the refusal to grant a motion to postpone the trial for a few days on account of the absence and illness of a witness—the movant’s wife—was such an abuse of discretion as to authorize the interference of a reviewing court, it appearing that although her attendance might cause her some suffering, she “helped to get breakfast and do the other things around the house” that morning, and that no doctor was waiting on her, or h.ad been called to see her in several months, and it further appearing that the case had been pending for several years, and that there had been a previous trial, though the movant testified that his wife did not until a few days previously inform him of the fact to which he expected her to testify.

2. Tlie determination of the issue depended upon whether certain drafts upon which the suit was based were genuine; the evidence was conflicting, and the trial judge having approved the finding in favor of the plaintiff, which is supported by sufficient evidence, this court can not interfere. " Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Motions for continuance are so largely addressed to the discretion of the trial judge that this court can not hold that in the present case the refusal to grant a motion to postpone the trial for a few days on account of the absence and illness of a witness—the movant’s wife—was such an abuse of discretion as to authorize the interference of a reviewing court, it appearing that although her attendance might cause her some suffering, she “helped to get breakfast and do the other things around the house” that morning, and that no doctor was waiting on her, or h.ad been called to see her in several months, and it further appearing that the case had been pending for several years, and that there had been a previous trial, though the movant testified that his wife did not until a few days previously inform him of the fact to which he expected her to testify.

2. Tlie determination of the issue depended upon whether certain drafts upon which the suit was based were genuine; the evidence was conflicting, and the trial judge having approved the finding in favor of the plaintiff, which is supported by sufficient evidence, this court can not interfere. " Judgment affirmed.

Roan, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 761, 15 Ga. App. 196, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-cochran-gactapp-1914.