Harrison v. Tate
Supreme Court of Georgia
Motion to reinstate. Before Judge Berry. City court of' Atlanta. January term, 1896. Two cases at a regular bar meeting were regularly called' and assigned for trial for Eriday, January 24, 1896, in the-second division of the city court of Atlanta. On that day the ■ cases were regularly reached in their order for trial, were-regularly called for trial, and, there being no appearance-for the plaintiffs, were dismissed for want of prosecution..
Read the full summary
Motion to reinstate. Before Judge Berry. City court of' Atlanta. January term, 1896. Two cases at a regular bar meeting were regularly called' and assigned for trial for Eriday, January 24, 1896, in the-second division of the city court of Atlanta. On that day the ■ cases were regularly reached in their order for trial, were-regularly called for trial, and, there being no appearance-for the plaintiffs, were dismissed for want of prosecution.. On the same day the plaintiffs moved to reinstate the cases • on the grounds, that when they were sounded for trial one • of the plaintiffs’ attorneys…
1Opinion of the CourtAtkinson, J.
The discretion of the trial judge in reinstating at the -same term of its dismissal a case which had been -dismissed because of a want of prosecution will not be controlled, unless it h-as been manifestly abused. Under the facts of the present case, the discretion of the co-ur't was not improperly exercised..
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring. 'Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiffs in error. Anderson, Felder & Davis, contra.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Shore v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Carolina Tree Service, Inc. v. CartledgeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Southern Railway Co. v. Empire Printing & Box Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Brooks v. BrooksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1932
- Kinney v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966