Home/Court of Appeals of Georgia/Montgomery v. Hardy Engineering & Construction Co.

Montgomery v. Hardy Engineering & Construction Co.

126 S.E.2d 644, 106 Ga. App. 120, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 640
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 25, 1962·No. 39533·Published

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. Where a hearing on a motion for a new trial was continued six times and on the date last set for the hearing the court entered an order dismissing the motion for a new trial for want of prosecution and because no brief of evidence had been presented for approval, the judgment dismissing the motion for a new trial must be affirmed as against the only assignment of error in the bill of exceptions that the judgment dismissing the motion was contrary to law. Oliver v. Benson, 211 Ga. 268 (85 SE2d 418); Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. v. Bray & Co., 127 Ga. 452 (56 SE 513); Smith v. State, 86 Ga. App. 403 (72 SE2d 462); Vinson v. State, 53 Ga. App. 224 (185 SE 529).

2. There was no assignment of error on the refusal of the court to continue the case because of the illness of movant’s counsel.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell and Hall, JJ., concur. [121]*121Decided May 25, 1962 Rehearing denied June 6, 1962. James L. Moore, for plaintiff in error. Inslee M. Johnson, contra.

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

Montgomery v. Hardy Engineering & Construction Co., 126 S.E.2d 644, 106 Ga. App. 120, 1962 Ga. App. LEXIS 640 (Ga. Ct. App. 1962).

126 S.E.2d 644 (Montgomery v. Hardy Engineering & Construction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Oliver v. Benson
85 S.E.2d 418 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Lambert Hoisting Engine Co. v. Bray & Co.
56 S.E. 513 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Vinson v. State
185 S.E. 529 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Hardison v. State
71 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Smith v. State
72 S.E.2d 462 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)