Benjamin v. Weintraub
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.
1. The general rule is that the discretion of the trial judge in granting or refusing a continuance will not be disturbed unless manifestly abused. There were two motions to continue, both based on the absence of witnesses. In neither motion was it shown what the desired witnesses would testify if present, or that either of them had ever stated such facts to counsel for movant. Only one of the witnesses had been subpoenaed, Mrs. Frejda Podorowska, who resides in Poland. She was present on the courthouse grounds in Waynesboro, but refused to attend. A female witness is not obliged, as a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Powell v. Augusta & Summerville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1887
- DeNieff v. HowellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1912
- Augusta & Summerville Railroad v. Randall & WifeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Bennett v. PattenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
- Ricketson v. RicketsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Manor v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Peavey v. CrawfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Graham Brothers' Construction Co. v. C. W. Matthews Contracting Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
- Walton v. WaltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
- Fountain v. WhatleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1931