Hill v. Clark
Supreme Court of Georgia
Continuance. Attorney. Absence of counsel. Before Judge Rice. Clarke Superior Court. August Term, 1873. The defendants in error brought suit against the plaintiff in error on a promissory note for $2,098 88, returnable to February term, 1870, of Clarke superior court. At the appearance term the defendant filed a plea to the merits of the action, and thus the parties were at issue.
Read the full summary
Continuance. Attorney. Absence of counsel. Before Judge Rice. Clarke Superior Court. August Term, 1873. The defendants in error brought suit against the plaintiff in error on a promissory note for $2,098 88, returnable to February term, 1870, of Clarke superior court. At the appearance term the defendant filed a plea to the merits of the action, and thus the parties were at issue. Before the case was reached the defendant, in his character as defendant and as attorney representing the defense, applied in open court for leave of absence from the court, stating in his place the following facts…
1Opinion of the Court
Trippe, Judge.
The grounds on which the leave of absence was asked at the adjourned term in July, were made the ground for the motion for a continuance at the August term, when the case was called for trial. As the applicant for the leave of absence *124had the benefit of all the facts in the motion to continue, it may be said that the whole question is merged in the latter motion and the decision- thereof. Moreover, it does not appear that the decision complained of, as to the refusal of the leave of absence, was made within a period prior to the sanction of the bill of exceptions that entitles…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Byers v. McPheeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
- Costley v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924
- Abrams v. Planters BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
- Costley v. ChapmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1924