Beckford & Holman v. Chipman
Supreme Court of Georgia
New trial. Waiver. Continuance. Charge of Court. Before Judge Chisolm. City Court of Savannah. February Term, 1871. Chipman sued Beckford and Holman for the price of certain food for mules. They pleaded the general issue. One Pitchford testified that the account was correct; that he' purchased the articles for defendant’s mules by the request of Mr. Holman, and fed it to the mules.
Read the full summary
New trial. Waiver. Continuance. Charge of Court. Before Judge Chisolm. City Court of Savannah. February Term, 1871. Chipman sued Beckford and Holman for the price of certain food for mules. They pleaded the general issue. One Pitchford testified that the account was correct; that he' purchased the articles for defendant’s mules by the request of Mr. Holman, and fed it to the mules. He said, under a previous contract between him and the firm, he bought and was to pay for the food for the teams himself, (though in that he had an order from defendants to plaintiffs for the food,) but that…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
1. There must be some end to litigation; and this is true, not only that parties may not be detained in Court until they become exhausted by delay, but that the public may not be compelled to give to one set of parties that attention which all have equal claims upon. Admit all that is said in this application • admit that this evidence was wholly unexpected; that this plaintiff, in good faith, had no idea this testimony would be given, can he truly say he has not been negligent? Such an excuse as this would open the door to new trials, almost without number. A man has talked with…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Jacobson v. HammanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1922
- Sanders v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1910
- Bray v. FreemanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Smith v. ClewsNew York Supreme Court · 1884