Pittman v. Dorsey
This text of 25 Ga. App. 596 (Pittman v. Dorsey) 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.
Opinion
1. Motions for continuance being addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and the evidence in this case adduced upon the hearing of a motion for continuance being conflicting, the trial judge did not err in refusing to continue the case.
2. Where a scire facias issues against a principal and a surety upon a forfeited recognizance, the mere tender of additional bail, unaccepted and unapproved, is no defense against a final judgment. See, in this connection, Penal Code (1910), § 960; Griffin v. Moore, 2 Ga. 331; Williams v. Jenkins, 53 Ga. 166.
3. The trial judge, without the intervention of a jury, properly entered judgment absolute against the principal and the surety.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
25 Ga. App. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-dorsey-gactapp-1920.