Butler v. Mooty
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Motion for a new trial; from city court of LaGrange—Arthur Greer, judge pro hac vice. December 11, 1918. From the bill of exceptions it appears that a judge pro hac vice, by agreement of the parties and under “orders regularly entered on the minutes, in accordance with the requirements of the law,” presided on the trial of this case at the March quarterly term of the city court of LaGrange.
Read the full summary
Motion for a new trial; from city court of LaGrange—Arthur Greer, judge pro hac vice. December 11, 1918. From the bill of exceptions it appears that a judge pro hac vice, by agreement of the parties and under “orders regularly entered on the minutes, in accordance with the requirements of the law,” presided on the trial of this case at the March quarterly term of the city court of LaGrange. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed at the same term a motion for a new trial, and at that term and during a session of the court when the judge of the city court was…
1Opinion of the CourtLuke, J.
This case is controlled by the decision in Gainesville Buggy and Wagon Co. v. Morrow, 23 Ga. App. 268 (98 S. E. 100). The judge pro hac vice erred in dismissing the motion for a new trial. Let it he reinstated.
Judgment reversed.
Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur. Hatton Lovejoy, Duke Davis, for plaintiff in error. M. U. Mooty, contra.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Gainesville Buggy & Wagon Co. v. MorrowCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1919