Kersey v. Barfield

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Kersey v. Barfield

167 S.E. 925, 46 Ga. App. 442, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 88

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1933

Docket22126

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 167 S.E. 925 (Kersey v. Barfield) 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

Kersey v. Barfield, 167 S.E. 925, 46 Ga. App. 442, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 88 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

The first headnote of this case is self-explanatory.

Plaintiff in error brought suit in a justice’s court upon an open account duly verified, the case being returnable to the February, 1931, term of said court. "Upon the call of the case the attorney for the plaintiff announced ready. The justice of the peace stated that the defendant had written him a note stating that she was sick and asking that the case be continued. The attorney for the plaintiff asked for a default judgment upon the ground that no defense had been filed. The justice of the peace overruled the motion and continued the case until the next term. At said term the plaintiff insisted upon his motion made at the previous term. This motion was overruled, and the defendant was allowed to file her counter-affidavit. The case then went to trial; judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant; and the plaintiff certioraried the case to the superior court. The judge of said court dismissed the certiorari, and the exception here is to this judgment.

The justice of the peace was not required to continue the case under the showing made, but in so doing he did not abuse his discretion. Civil Code (1910), § 5724. The justice did not err in failing to mark the case in default and allowing the defendant to file her counter-affidavit. Hall v. Tiedeman, 141 Ga. 602 (81 S. E. 868); O’Dell v. Meacham, 114 Ga. 910 (41 S. E. 41). The judge of the superior court did not err in denying the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., arid Guerry, J., concur,

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

MacIntyre, J.

The first headnote of this case is self-explanatory.

Plaintiff in error brought suit in a justice’s court upon an open account duly verified, the case being returnable to the February, 1931, term of said court. "Upon the call of the case the attorney for the plaintiff announced ready. The justice of the peace stated that the defendant had written him a note stating that she was sick and asking that the case be continued. The attorney for the plaintiff asked for a default judgment upon the ground that no defense had been filed. The justice of the peace overruled the motion and continued the case until the next term. At said term the plaintiff insisted upon his motion made at the previous term. This motion was overruled, and the defendant was allowed to file her counter-affidavit. The case then went to trial; judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant; and the plaintiff certioraried the case to the superior court. The judge of said court dismissed the certiorari, and the exception here is to this judgment.

The justice of the peace was not required to continue the case under the showing made, but in so doing he did not abuse his discretion. Civil Code (1910), § 5724. The justice did not err in failing to mark the case in default and allowing the defendant to file her counter-affidavit. Hall v. Tiedeman, 141 Ga. 602 (81 S. E. 868); O’Dell v. Meacham, 114 Ga. 910 (41 S. E. 41). The judge of the superior court did not err in denying the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., arid Guerry, J., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 S.E. 925, 46 Ga. App. 442, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kersey-v-barfield-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack