King v. Cochran

166 S.E. 441, 46 Ga. App. 46, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 30
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 1932
Docket22371
StatusPublished

This text of 166 S.E. 441 (King 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
King v. Cochran, 166 S.E. 441, 46 Ga. App. 46, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 30 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is denied.

2. Under the facts of the case as disclosed by the record, and the rulings in Pope v. Shipp, 38 Ga. App. 483 (2, 3) (144 S. E. 345), it does not appear that the trial judge abused his wide discretion in overruling the motion to continue the hearing of the motion for a new trial, or in dismissing the motion for a new trial. See, also, Starke v. Hunt, 29 Ga. App. 397 (2) (115 S. E. 505), and cit.

3. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay, the request of the defendant in error, that damages be awarded him, is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Hooper, J., conews. MacIntyre, J., not presiding. B. Garter Pittman, for plaintiff in error. Mitchell & Mitchell, contra.

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

Related

Starke v. Hunt
115 S.E. 505 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Pope v. Shipp
144 S.E. 345 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 S.E. 441, 46 Ga. App. 46, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-cochran-gactapp-1932.