Fullbright v. Vincent
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Wade, C. J.
1. It does not appear that the trial judge in refusing to grant the motion for a continuance abused the broad discretion vested in him by law.
2. A fair interpretation of the recitals in the bill of exceptions compels the conclusion that the affidavit which the court declined to allow the defendant to attach to his amended motion for a new trial was not oSered at the time the motion for a continuance was made, and therefore the court did not err in rejecting it. Southern Ry. Co. v. Brock, 132 Ga. 858 ( 64 S. E. 1083 ).
*521 Decided September 15, 1916. Complaint; from city court of Cartersville — Judge Moon. October 27, 1915. W. T. Townsend, for plaintiff in error. Finley & Henson, contra.
3. The evidence sufficiently supported the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. Jtidgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.