Martin v. Parham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. Parham

80 S.E. 674, 14 Ga. App. 257, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 201

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 20, 1914

Docket5333

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 80 S.E. 674 (Martin v. Parham) 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. Parham, 80 S.E. 674, 14 Ga. App. 257, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 201 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

1. Where a motion' to set aside a judgment was filed by two persons, and in a bill of exceptions to the overruling of the motion one of the plaintiffs in error is named and the other is designated merely as “et al.,” in the absence of a motion to amend the bill of exceptions the writ of error will be treated as having been sued out only by the plaintiff in error so named, and the designation of the other party as “et al.” will be disregarded.

2. A judgment by default was rendered on a promissory note on May 8, 1913. On June 5, 1913, a motion to set aside the judgment was filed by the defendants. The motion alleged, in substance, that the movants employed an attorney at law to represent them, and that he agreed to file an answer and to defend the suit; that they delivered to this attorney papers relating to the case; and that he without cause failed to file a defense. The motion set up that the movants had a good defense. Held,, that the overruling of the motion to set aside the judgment will not be reversed. See Morris v. Wofford, 114 Ga. 935 (41 S. E. 56); Moore v. Kelly & Jones Co., 109 Ga. 798 (35 S. E. 168) ; Bently v. Finch, 86 Ga. 810 (13 S. E. 155). The neglect of the attorney was the neglect of the elient, and furnished no reason for setting aside the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Where a motion' to set aside a judgment was filed by two persons, and in a bill of exceptions to the overruling of the motion one of the plaintiffs in error is named and the other is designated merely as “et al.,” in the absence of a motion to amend the bill of exceptions the writ of error will be treated as having been sued out only by the plaintiff in error so named, and the designation of the other party as “et al.” will be disregarded.

2. A judgment by default was rendered on a promissory note on May 8, 1913. On June 5, 1913, a motion to set aside the judgment was filed by the defendants. The motion alleged, in substance, that the movants employed an attorney at law to represent them, and that he agreed to file an answer and to defend the suit; that they delivered to this attorney papers relating to the case; and that he without cause failed to file a defense. The motion set up that the movants had a good defense. Held,, that the overruling of the motion to set aside the judgment will not be reversed. See Morris v. Wofford, 114 Ga. 935 (41 S. E. 56); Moore v. Kelly & Jones Co., 109 Ga. 798 (35 S. E. 168) ; Bently v. Finch, 86 Ga. 810 (13 S. E. 155). The neglect of the attorney was the neglect of the elient, and furnished no reason for setting aside the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 674, 14 Ga. App. 257, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-parham-gactapp-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack