Parrott v. Bradley & Co.

112 S.E. 152, 28 Ga. App. 529, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 659
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided May 6, 1922·No. 13053·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

112 S.E. 152 (Parrott v. Bradley & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Connally Realty Co. v. Nalley
143 S.E. 786 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1928)