Rothleutner v. Bateman

86 S.E. 215, 144 Ga. 103, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 73
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided September 17, 1915·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. All applications for continuances are addressed to the sound discretion of the court. And it not appearing that the discretion of the trial court in refusing a continuance in the instant case was abused, the exception to the denial of a new trial because of such refusal is without merit.

2. As is recognized by the plaintiff in error and shown by the bill of ex[104] ceptions, tlie adverse ruling upon the motion for a continuance is controlling; and that ruling having been sustained, the judgment of the court below is

September 17, 1915. Action for damages. Before Judge Ellis.. Fulton superior court. June 26, 1914. Anderson & Anderson and P. B. D’Orr, for plaintiff. George Westmoreland, for defendant.

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

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

Rothleutner v. Bateman, 86 S.E. 215, 144 Ga. 103, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 73 (Ga. 1915).

86 S.E. 215 (Rothleutner v. Bateman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Crow v. State
70 S.E.2d 601 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
United Motor Freight Terminals v. Driver
44 S.E.2d 156 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Williams v. Baber
5 S.E.2d 703 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Brown v. Wells
131 S.E. 159 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1925)
Strickland v. Strickland
94 S.E. 766 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)