Thompson v. Meiskey Co.
89 S.E. 80, 18 Ga. App. 161, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 194
Opinion
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
Thompson v. Meiskey Co., 89 S.E. 80, 18 Ga. App. 161, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).
89 S.E. 80 (Thompson v. Meiskey Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. Ragan
71 S.E. 1098 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1911)
Hill v. Harris
75 S.E. 518 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)