Vessel v. Hill

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Vessel v. Hill

108 S.E. 242, 27 Ga. App. 337, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 880

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 3, 1921

Docket12040

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 242 (Vessel v. Hill) 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

Vessel v. Hill, 108 S.E. 242, 27 Ga. App. 337, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 880 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. In the absence of any legal showing demanding a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a party to -the case, as required by the Civil Code (1910), § 5717, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a motion to continue, made by the defendant’s counsel, upon the ground of the defendant’s absence, when upon the hearing on the motion the defendant’s absence could in no wise be accounted for, and it affirmatively appeared that he had received actual notice of the time and place of trial. This is true even though the rights of a third person not a party to the record might be prejudiced by the defendant’s failure to appear and defend the case, when certain property belonging to the defendant, which might be subjected to a judgment in behalf of the plaintiff, might, in the event the defendant prevailed, inure to the benefit of such third person and satisfy a judgment which the latter might obtain in a suit which he has pending against the defendant.

2. All other grounds of the motion for a new trial are expressly abandontd.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. In the absence of any legal showing demanding a continuance upon the ground of the absence of a party to -the case, as required by the Civil Code (1910), § 5717, this court can not hold that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant a motion to continue, made by the defendant’s counsel, upon the ground of the defendant’s absence, when upon the hearing on the motion the defendant’s absence could in no wise be accounted for, and it affirmatively appeared that he had received actual notice of the time and place of trial. This is true even though the rights of a third person not a party to the record might be prejudiced by the defendant’s failure to appear and defend the case, when certain property belonging to the defendant, which might be subjected to a judgment in behalf of the plaintiff, might, in the event the defendant prevailed, inure to the benefit of such third person and satisfy a judgment which the latter might obtain in a suit which he has pending against the defendant.

2. All other grounds of the motion for a new trial are expressly abandontd.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 242, 27 Ga. App. 337, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vessel-v-hill-gactapp-1921.