McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville

95 S.E. 737, 22 Ga. App. 178, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 224

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 10, 1918

Docket9021

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 95 S.E. 737 (McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville) 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

McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville, 95 S.E. 737, 22 Ga. App. 178, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 224 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworti-x, J.

When this case was called for trial the defendant was absent, but one of his attorneys was present,, and the other came into court before the trial proceeded. There was no motion to continue the case, but a new trial was asked upon the ground that the defendant was too ill on the day of the trial to attend court. However, it is not shown that he made any effort to communicate this fact to the court or to his attorneys, or that he was so situated that he could not do so. This shows lack of diligence. “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 on the ground that he was sick, and—not expecting the case to be fried—did not send any affidavit of his sickness. 51 Ga. 241; 53 Ib. 149; 54 Ib. 60; 59 Ib. 83." Lumpkin v. Respess, 68 Ga. 822.

In the motion for a new trial it is stated that any announcement of ready for trial by counsel for the defendant'was “without his knowledge, consent, or approval. ” In Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 654 (7 S. E. 135), Chief Justice Bleckley said: “There is full power'on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person; and it is no [179]*179answer to a decree, a solemn judgment of a court, for the client to come in and say that the counsel misrepresented the client’s interests, or did not represent the client’s wishes. Let the client see that the counsel conforms to instructions; and if there is any injury by failure to' do it, let the counsel answer for it, and not the other party.”

Under the rulings above, the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial in this case are without merit. See also Sparks v. Ober & Sons Co., 138 Ga. 316 (75 S. E. 135); Denmond v. Hillyer, 129 Ga. 698 (59 S. E. 806); Glover v. Dimmock, 119 Ga. 696 (46 S. E. 824); Burton v. Etheridge, 19 Ga. App. 511 (91 S. E. 927).

The evidence authorized the Arerdict, and a new trial was properly refused.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

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

Bloodworti-x, J.

When this case was called for trial the defendant was absent, but one of his attorneys was present,, and the other came into court before the trial proceeded. There was no motion to continue the case, but a new trial was asked upon the ground that the defendant was too ill on the day of the trial to attend court. However, it is not shown that he made any effort to communicate this fact to the court or to his attorneys, or that he was so situated that he could not do so. This shows lack of diligence. “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 on the ground that he was sick, and—not expecting the case to be fried—did not send any affidavit of his sickness. 51 Ga. 241; 53 Ib. 149; 54 Ib. 60; 59 Ib. 83." Lumpkin v. Respess, 68 Ga. 822.

In the motion for a new trial it is stated that any announcement of ready for trial by counsel for the defendant'was “without his knowledge, consent, or approval. ” In Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 654 (7 S. E. 135), Chief Justice Bleckley said: “There is full power'on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person; and it is no [179]*179answer to a decree, a solemn judgment of a court, for the client to come in and say that the counsel misrepresented the client’s interests, or did not represent the client’s wishes. Let the client see that the counsel conforms to instructions; and if there is any injury by failure to' do it, let the counsel answer for it, and not the other party.”

Under the rulings above, the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial in this case are without merit. See also Sparks v. Ober & Sons Co., 138 Ga. 316 (75 S. E. 135); Denmond v. Hillyer, 129 Ga. 698 (59 S. E. 806); Glover v. Dimmock, 119 Ga. 696 (46 S. E. 824); Burton v. Etheridge, 19 Ga. App. 511 (91 S. E. 927).

The evidence authorized the Arerdict, and a new trial was properly refused.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 S.E. 737, 22 Ga. App. 178, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcanally-v-bank-of-abbeville-gactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack