Mann v. Tallapoosa Street Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mann v. Tallapoosa Street Railway Co.

24 S.E. 871, 99 Ga. 117

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 23, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 24 S.E. 871 (Mann v. Tallapoosa Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mann v. Tallapoosa Street Railway Co., 24 S.E. 871, 99 Ga. 117 (Ga. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. It is not cause for 'dismissing a motion for a new trial that the judge improperly approved as a brief of the evidence a paper purporting to be such, but which was not in fact made out as required by law. The proper practice in such case is to except directly to the order of approval, or else move to vacate that order, and if 'the motion is refused, to except directly to such refusal. Tate v. Griffith, 83 Ga. 153; Lewis v. Mortgage Co., 94 Ga. 574; Hood v. Culver, 95 Ga. 120.

[118]*118May 23, 1896. By two Justices. Argued at the last term.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Janes. Haralson superior court. January term, 1895.

Dean & Dean and Head & Head, for plaintiffs.

2. Where a motion for a new trial not -signed by the movant or his dounsel was duly fil-ed, a rule nisi granted thereon, and service of the same acknowledged by -counsel for the opposite party, there was no error in allowing movant’s counsel to amend the motion (if such amendment was necessary) by signing his name to the m'otion after the time within which it could in the first instance have been legally filed had expired.

3. This being t-h-e first grant of a new trial, the established rule in such cases applies. Judgment affirmed.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. It is not cause for 'dismissing a motion for a new trial that the judge improperly approved as a brief of the evidence a paper purporting to be such, but which was not in fact made out as required by law. The proper practice in such case is to except directly to the order of approval, or else move to vacate that order, and if 'the motion is refused, to except directly to such refusal. Tate v. Griffith, 83 Ga. 153; Lewis v. Mortgage Co., 94 Ga. 574; Hood v. Culver, 95 Ga. 120.

[118]*118May 23, 1896. By two Justices. Argued at the last term.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Janes. Haralson superior court. January term, 1895.

Dean & Dean and Head & Head, for plaintiffs.

2. Where a motion for a new trial not -signed by the movant or his dounsel was duly fil-ed, a rule nisi granted thereon, and service of the same acknowledged by -counsel for the opposite party, there was no error in allowing movant’s counsel to amend the motion (if such amendment was necessary) by signing his name to the m'otion after the time within which it could in the first instance have been legally filed had expired.

3. This being t-h-e first grant of a new trial, the established rule in such cases applies. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.E. 871, 99 Ga. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-tallapoosa-street-railway-co-ga-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack