From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mosley v. Bridges

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 30, 1941
15 S.E.2d 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)

Opinion

28991.

DECIDED MAY 30, 1941.

Levy and claim; from Wrightsville city court — Judge Brinson. January 11, 1941.

E. L. Rowland, J. Roy Rowland, for plaintiff in error.


In order to show cause for a continuance on the ground that a party is providentially prevented from attending the trial, it must not only appear that the party is providentially hindered and prevented from being present, but also that counsel can not safely go to trial without the presence of such absent party. Code, § 81-1412; Cauthen v. Barnesville Savings Bank, 69 Ga. 767. In the case at bar it was not error to refuse to grant a continuance, counsel stating in his place only that his client "was ill and unable to appear in court." It was not error to overrule the motion to set aside the verdict, the ground of which was that the court erred in not continuing the case.

Judgment affirmed. Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

DECIDED MAY 30, 1941.


Summaries of

Mosley v. Bridges

Court of Appeals of Georgia
May 30, 1941
15 S.E.2d 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
Case details for

Mosley v. Bridges

Case Details

Full title:MOSLEY v. BRIDGES

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: May 30, 1941

Citations

15 S.E.2d 260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1941)
65 Ga. App. 64

Citing Cases

Odom v. Odom

Pope v. U.S. Fidelity Guaranty Co., 200 Ga. 69 ( 35 S.E.2d 899). Statement of counsel to the effect that his…

Cotton States Ins. Co. v. Proudfoot

6. Ordinarily, in the trial of a civil action the attorney who moves for a continuance because of the absence…