Franklin v. Ford
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Attachment; from city court of Floyd county — Judge Eeece. December 9, 1913.
1Opinion of the Court
Hill, O. J.
1. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for continuance, based on the absence of the defendant and his alleged sickness. This ground of the motion was supported only by the unsworn statement of one who was alleged to be a physician. There was no evidence that the certificate was made by a physician. It also appeared from the record that if the defendant had been present at the trial, the result would not have been different, as no meritorious defense was set up. Handley v. Bank, 10 Ga. App. 383 (73 S. E. 413).
2. An agreement made by the reputed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. CrosbyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Hays v. McFarlanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1861
- Handley v. Merchants & Farmers BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
3Cited by12 opinions
- Martin v. McLainCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Thorpe v. CollinsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1980
- Sybilla v. ConnallyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
- Glass v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
- Williams v. AmannDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1943
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.