Martin v. Mills

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. Mills

20 S.E.2d 621, 67 Ga. App. 424, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 435

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1942

Docket29589.

StatusPublished

This text of 20 S.E.2d 621 (Martin v. Mills) 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

Martin v. Mills, 20 S.E.2d 621, 67 Ga. App. 424, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 435 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, 'J.

Kalph .Mills foreclosed a laborer’s lien in a justice’s court against C. C. Martin. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, and on an appeal to a jury in the superior court the jury found for the plaintiff-. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and he excepted,

The first ground of the amended motion complains of the refusal of the court to grant a continuance on account of the absence of a witness for the defendant. There was no error in this ruling because on a showing made the defendant did not show that the absence of the witness was without permission of the applicant, that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court, that his testimony was material, and that the application was not made for the purpose of delay. In the absence of such showing the court properly refused to grant a continuance. Code § 81-1410.

Grounds 2 and 6 complain that the court refused to direct a verdict for the defendant. It has been held numbers of times that it is never error to refuse to direct a verdict. Code, Ann., § 110-104, catchword “Refusal.”

Grounds 3 and 4 complain of the allowance of certain testimony over objection. These grounds are not complete because it is not shown wherein the testimony was harmful to the defendant.

There is no merit in ground 5 of the motion.

It is contended by defendant in error that the grounds of 'the amended motion were not approved by the judge. Grounds of a motion for new trial which have simply been allowed and ordered filed as a part of the record in a case will be considered as having been approved where no' point on the sufficiency of the approval was made in the court below and the judge passed generally on the motion as amended. Price v. State, 170 Ga. 294 (152 S. E. 572); Nix v. Nix, 55 Ga. App. 776 (191 S. E. 381).

*426 The evidence supported the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs. Stephens, P. J., concurs in the judgment.

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

Felton, 'J.

Kalph .Mills foreclosed a laborer’s lien in a justice’s court against C. C. Martin. There was a judgment for the plaintiff, and on an appeal to a jury in the superior court the jury found for the plaintiff-. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled and he excepted,

The first ground of the amended motion complains of the refusal of the court to grant a continuance on account of the absence of a witness for the defendant. There was no error in this ruling because on a showing made the defendant did not show that the absence of the witness was without permission of the applicant, that he expected to be able to procure the testimony of such witness at the next term of the court, that his testimony was material, and that the application was not made for the purpose of delay. In the absence of such showing the court properly refused to grant a continuance. Code § 81-1410.

Grounds 2 and 6 complain that the court refused to direct a verdict for the defendant. It has been held numbers of times that it is never error to refuse to direct a verdict. Code, Ann., § 110-104, catchword “Refusal.”

Grounds 3 and 4 complain of the allowance of certain testimony over objection. These grounds are not complete because it is not shown wherein the testimony was harmful to the defendant.

There is no merit in ground 5 of the motion.

It is contended by defendant in error that the grounds of 'the amended motion were not approved by the judge. Grounds of a motion for new trial which have simply been allowed and ordered filed as a part of the record in a case will be considered as having been approved where no' point on the sufficiency of the approval was made in the court below and the judge passed generally on the motion as amended. Price v. State, 170 Ga. 294 (152 S. E. 572); Nix v. Nix, 55 Ga. App. 776 (191 S. E. 381).

*426 The evidence supported the verdict. The court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs. Stephens, P. J., concurs in the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 S.E.2d 621, 67 Ga. App. 424, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-mills-gactapp-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack