Martin v. Shields

Supreme Court of Georgia

Martin v. Shields

86 S.E. 538, 144 Ga. 179, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 110

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 86 S.E. 538 (Martin v. Shields) 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

Martin v. Shields, 86 S.E. 538, 144 Ga. 179, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 110 (Ga. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

Where a defendant duly served fails to answer, and a judgment in default is entered against him, the fact that such person has requested a codefendant to employ counsel and file a defense for him, [180]*180and the eodefendant has failed to do so, is not such a providential cause or excusable neglect as will authorize the judge in his sound discretion to allow the default to be opened and a defense set up at the trial term. Ingalls v. Lamar, 115 Ga. 296 (41 S. E. 573); Moore v. Kelly & Jones Co., 109 Ga. 798 (35 S. E. 168); Civil Code, § 5656.

October 13, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Meadow. Madison superior court. September 10, 1914.

Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiff in error. Stevenson & Martin and Berry T. Moseley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

Where a defendant duly served fails to answer, and a judgment in default is entered against him, the fact that such person has requested a codefendant to employ counsel and file a defense for him, [180]*180and the eodefendant has failed to do so, is not such a providential cause or excusable neglect as will authorize the judge in his sound discretion to allow the default to be opened and a defense set up at the trial term. Ingalls v. Lamar, 115 Ga. 296 (41 S. E. 573); Moore v. Kelly & Jones Co., 109 Ga. 798 (35 S. E. 168); Civil Code, § 5656.

October 13, 1915.

Complaint. Before Judge Meadow. Madison superior court. September 10, 1914.

Clarence E. Adams, for plaintiff in error. Stevenson & Martin and Berry T. Moseley, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 538, 144 Ga. 179, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-shields-ga-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack