Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Taylor

88 S.E. 798, 18 Ga. App. 56, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 117
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMay 2, 1916
Docket6687
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 88 S.E. 798 (Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Taylor) 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
Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Taylor, 88 S.E. 798, 18 Ga. App. 56, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. A motion to open or vacate a judgment during the term at which it was rendered is addressed to the discretion of the court, and this discretion will not be controlled, unless manifestly abused. Aiken v. Wolfe, 76 Ga. 816; Wells v. Butler Supply Co., 128 Ga. 37-40 (57 S. E. 55), and citations. “Courts of record retain full control over orders and judgments during the term at which they were made, and in the exercise of a sound discretion may revise or vacate the same.” Bowen v. Wyeth, 119 Ga. 687 (46 S. E. 823). Orders and judgments are in the breast of the court during the term at which they are made or rendered, and, for the purpose of modifying or vacating them, the whole term -may be considered as a single day. Jordan v. Tarver, 92 Ga. 379 (17 S. E. 351).

2. “In a proper proceeding by petition with rule nisi or process, and service upon the necessary parties, the courts of this State may exercise the jurisdiction, which obtained at common law, to set aside judgments for irregularties not appearing on the face of the record.” Union Compress Co. v. Leffler, 122 Ga. 640 (50 S. E. 483).

3. Where there was evidence, satisfactory to the trial court, that the case had not been placed upon the trial calendar or assigned for trial in [57]*57accordance with a practice well established in that court, and especially where the only effect of vacating the judgment was to give both parties an opportunity to be heard before a jury, it will not be held that it was an abuse of discretion to vacate a judgment obtained upon ex parte proof at the same term. Judgment affirmed.

Decided May 2, 1916. Levy and claim; from city court of Eastman — Judge ISTeese. May 5, 1915. Marion' Turner, for plaintiff in error. W. M. Clements, contra.

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

Related

Saturday v. Saturday
147 S.E.2d 798 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Lawson v. Haygood
43 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1947)
Berkeley v. State of Georgia
41 S.E.2d 265 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Methodist Episcopal Church, South Inc. v. Decell
5 S.E.2d 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Escoe
1937 OK 81 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1937)
Allison v. Garber
178 S.E. 158 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Hardwick v. Shahan
118 S.E. 575 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
88 S.E. 798, 18 Ga. App. 56, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-cotton-oil-co-v-taylor-gactapp-1916.