Lumpkin v. Respess

68 Ga. 822
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided February 15, 1882·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

■i. The verdict is supported by the evidence.

2. A continuance was properly refused on the ground that a material witness was absent, when there was no evidence of his having been subpoenaed.

3. A new and distinct party cannot be added to a suit by amendment. Code, §3480.

4. Where a party to a suit has ample opportunity to inform the court of his sickness and obtain a continuance, after verdict in his absence, a new trial will not be granted cn the ground that he was sick, and — not expecting the case to be tried — did not send any affidavit of his sickness 51 Ga., 241; 53 Ib., 149; 54 Ib., 660; 59 Ib., 83.

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

Lumpkin v. Respess, 68 Ga. 822 (Ga. 1882).

68 Ga. 822 (Lumpkin v. Respess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Burnett v. Johnston
157 S.E. 645 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)
McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville
95 S.E. 737 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Bryant v. Elberton & Eastern Railway Co.
93 S.E. 219 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Ayer v. James
48 S.E. 154 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Phillips v. Taber
10 S.E. 270 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1889)