Patten v. Stoner
63 S.E. 827, 132 Ga. 177, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 59
Opinion
There being no complaint that the court abused Bis disere-, tion in refusing to dismiss the motion for a new trial because of a failure to file the brief of evidence in strict conformity with a term order, this case is controlled under its special facts by the rulings made in Napier v. Heilker, 115 Ga. 168 (41 S. E. 689), Broadway National Bank v. Kendrick, 124 Ga. 1053 (53 S. E. 576), and Eady v. A. C. L. R. Co., 129 Ga. 363 (58 S. E. 895); and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Patten v. Stoner, 63 S.E. 827, 132 Ga. 177, 1909 Ga. LEXIS 59 (Ga. 1909).
63 S.E. 827 (Patten v. Stoner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Napier v. Heilker
41 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1902)
Broadway National Bank v. Kendrick
53 S.E. 576 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Eady v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
58 S.E. 895 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)