Parrott v. Bradley & Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Parrott v. Bradley & Co.

112 S.E. 152, 28 Ga. App. 529, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 659

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1922

Docket13053

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.E. 152 (Parrott v. Bradley & Co.) 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

Parrott v. Bradley & Co., 112 S.E. 152, 28 Ga. App. 529, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 659 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

A motion for a continuance was made by tbe defendant in the justice court, on the ground that his attorney was absent on account of sickness. The magistrate passed upon the issue of fact involved in this motion and refused to continue the case. The judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to interfere with the discretion of the magistrate and in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

A motion for a continuance was made by tbe defendant in the justice court, on the ground that his attorney was absent on account of sickness. The magistrate passed upon the issue of fact involved in this motion and refused to continue the case. The judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to interfere with the discretion of the magistrate and in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 152, 28 Ga. App. 529, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parrott-v-bradley-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack