Maynard v. Cleveland
Supreme Court of Georgia
Continuance. Practice in Superior Court. Witness. Trusts and Trustees. Payment. Fraud. Evidence. Interrogatories. Before Judge Stewart. Monroe Superior .Court. August Term, 1884. Reported in the decision.
1Opinion of the Court
Clarice, Judge.
At the trial, defendant moved for a continuance for the want of, and in order to obtain, the testimony of one Brantly. By him he desired and expected to prove that, in witnesses presence, Wilde C. Cleveland had actually paid to him $500. Defendant had all along known that Brantly was present at the transaction, and that he lived out of the county. But, although the case had been in court several years, he had not sued out his depositions, nor engaged him to attend, nor even consulted him on the subject. As an excuse for this apparent negligence, he made the following showing:…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- N. Rogers & Sons v. BatchelorSupreme Court of the United States · 1838
- King v. KingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1867
- Zellner v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1880
- Shivers v. PalmerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1853
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Interstate Life &C. Ins. Co. v. WilmontCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1971
- Cohen v. ParishSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
- In re the Estate of CroninNew York Surrogate's Court · 1932
- Jones v. RaganSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Campbell v. Atlanta Coach Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.