Milltown Lumber Co. v. Lastinger

Supreme Court of Georgia

Milltown Lumber Co. v. Lastinger

72 S.E. 892, 137 Ga. 104, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 313

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 892 (Milltown Lumber Co. v. Lastinger) 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

Milltown Lumber Co. v. Lastinger, 72 S.E. 892, 137 Ga. 104, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 313 (Ga. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Xumpkin, J.

At the September, 1910, term of the superior court a verdict was rendered. The losing party moved for a new trial, the rule nisi being made returnable in vacation on November 2. An order was also granted, reciting that it was impossible to make out a complete brief of evidence before the adjournment of court, repeating the setting of the hearing, and declaring that the movant might amend the motion at any time before the final hearing, and that he should have until the hearing, whenever it might be, to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence. On the date fixed for a hearing, counsel entered [105]*105into a written consent to continue it to November 4, and the judge passed an order setting the hearing for the agreed date, and allowing the movant until such date to make out and file a brief of the evidence. On the second day so fixed, the judge, by agreement, passed an order declaring that the “motion for a new trial stands continued until” another named date in vacation • (Nov. 22). On the last day so fixed counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the motion for a new trial, because no brief of the. evidence was presented for approval on or before November 4, and the order continuing the hearing from that date did not continue the time for presenting or filing a brief of the evidence. It was admitted that a brief of evidence had been agreed upon by counsel on Sunday, November 20, but the agreement was dated November 3, and an entry of filing thereon was dated November 4. It did not appear that the brief was at any time presented to the judge for approval; nor was there any assignment of error based on a refusal to approve it. Held, that, under such circumstances, the judgment of the presiding judge dismissing the motion will not be reversed.

November 15, 1911.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Merrill. Berrien superior court. November 22, 1910.

W. B. Smith and W. G. Harrison, for plaintiffs in error, Hendricks & Christian, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, J,, absent, and Sill, J., not presiding.

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

Xumpkin, J.

At the September, 1910, term of the superior court a verdict was rendered. The losing party moved for a new trial, the rule nisi being made returnable in vacation on November 2. An order was also granted, reciting that it was impossible to make out a complete brief of evidence before the adjournment of court, repeating the setting of the hearing, and declaring that the movant might amend the motion at any time before the final hearing, and that he should have until the hearing, whenever it might be, to prepare and present for approval a brief of the evidence. On the date fixed for a hearing, counsel entered [105]*105into a written consent to continue it to November 4, and the judge passed an order setting the hearing for the agreed date, and allowing the movant until such date to make out and file a brief of the evidence. On the second day so fixed, the judge, by agreement, passed an order declaring that the “motion for a new trial stands continued until” another named date in vacation • (Nov. 22). On the last day so fixed counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the motion for a new trial, because no brief of the. evidence was presented for approval on or before November 4, and the order continuing the hearing from that date did not continue the time for presenting or filing a brief of the evidence. It was admitted that a brief of evidence had been agreed upon by counsel on Sunday, November 20, but the agreement was dated November 3, and an entry of filing thereon was dated November 4. It did not appear that the brief was at any time presented to the judge for approval; nor was there any assignment of error based on a refusal to approve it. Held, that, under such circumstances, the judgment of the presiding judge dismissing the motion will not be reversed.

November 15, 1911.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Merrill. Berrien superior court. November 22, 1910.

W. B. Smith and W. G. Harrison, for plaintiffs in error, Hendricks & Christian, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Beck, J,, absent, and Sill, J., not presiding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 892, 137 Ga. 104, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milltown-lumber-co-v-lastinger-ga-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack