This statute applies to expert witnesses as well as to fact witnesses. Carter v. Murphey, 241 Ga.App. 340, 342–344(1), 526 S.E.2d 149 (1999). “Where any one of [ OCGA § 9–10–160's] requirements is not met, there is no abuse of the trial court's discretion to deny a continuance.”
Therefore, we cannot consider this argument. See Carter v. Murphey , 241 Ga. App. 340, 343 (1), 526 S.E.2d 149 (1999). Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and case remanded for resentencing.
But because CACV did not file a cross-appeal raising this argument, the issue is not before us and will not be considered. See OCGA § 5-6-38 (a); Carter v. Murphey, 241 Ga. App. 340, 343 (1) ( 526 SE2d 149) (1999). 4. Hutto's motion to strike CACV's amended brief is denied as moot.
Accordingly, we do not find error in the amount of damages awarded. See Carter v. Murphey, 241 Ga. App. 340, 344 (2) ( 526 SE2d 149) (1999); Holland v. Holland Heating c., supra at 796.Carter v. Murphey, supra.
The Carters did not receive a jury verdict in favor of their claim for money invested as alleged in the counterclaim. Pursuant to an appeal, Carter v. Murphey, 241 Ga. App. 340, 343-344(1) ( 526 S.E.2d 149) (1999), this Court affirmed the award to Murphey and granted a new trial to the Carters on the counterclaim on procedural grounds. After the Carters rested in the second trial, Murphey successfully moved for a directed verdict on both counts of the counterclaim, and the Carters again appeal.