Mosley v. Bridges

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mosley v. Bridges

15 S.E.2d 260, 65 Ga. App. 64, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 258

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 30, 1941

Docket28991.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 15 S.E.2d 260 (Mosley v. Bridges) 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

Mosley v. Bridges, 15 S.E.2d 260, 65 Ga. App. 64, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 258 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

FELTON, J.

In order to show cause for a continuance on the ground that a party is providentially prevented from attending the trial, it must not only appear that the party is providentially hindered and prevented from being present, but also that counsel can not safely go to trial without the presence of such absent party. Code, § 81-1412; Cauthen v. Barnesville Savings Bank, 69 Ga. 767. In the case at bar it was not ■error to refuse to grant a continuance, counsel stating in his place only that his client “was ill and unable to appear in court.” It was not error to overrule the motion to set aside the verdict, the ground of which was that the court erred in not continuing the case.

Judgment affh'med.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

FELTON, J.

In order to show cause for a continuance on the ground that a party is providentially prevented from attending the trial, it must not only appear that the party is providentially hindered and prevented from being present, but also that counsel can not safely go to trial without the presence of such absent party. Code, § 81-1412; Cauthen v. Barnesville Savings Bank, 69 Ga. 767. In the case at bar it was not ■error to refuse to grant a continuance, counsel stating in his place only that his client “was ill and unable to appear in court.” It was not error to overrule the motion to set aside the verdict, the ground of which was that the court erred in not continuing the case.

Judgment affh'med.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 S.E.2d 260, 65 Ga. App. 64, 1941 Ga. App. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosley-v-bridges-gactapp-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack