Thompson v. Meiskey Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Thompson v. Meiskey Co.

89 S.E. 80, 18 Ga. App. 161, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 194

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 24, 1916

Docket6987

StatusPublished

This text of 89 S.E. 80 (Thompson v. Meiskey Co.) 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

Thompson v. Meiskey Co., 89 S.E. 80, 18 Ga. App. 161, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance because of surprise by an amendment, it not appearing how and wherein the movant was less prepared to go to trial. Civil Code, § 5714; Jones v. Ragan, 136 Ga. 653 (5), 655 (71 S. E. 1098); Hill v. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358 (75 S. E. 518).

2. There was evidence to support the verdict. No error of law appears; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. There was no abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance because of surprise by an amendment, it not appearing how and wherein the movant was less prepared to go to trial. Civil Code, § 5714; Jones v. Ragan, 136 Ga. 653 (5), 655 (71 S. E. 1098); Hill v. Harris, 11 Ga. App. 358 (75 S. E. 518).

2. There was evidence to support the verdict. No error of law appears; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 80, 18 Ga. App. 161, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-meiskey-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack