Snelling v. Darrell
Supreme Court of Georgia
In Equity, and motion for a new trial, in Stewart Superior Court. Decision by Judge Crawford, October Term, 1854. A motion was made to amend the rule nisi for a new trial, by adding two grounds, founded on newly discovered evidence. The Court refused the motion to amend, and this decision is assigned as error. The bill, in this case, was filed to recover a legacy under the will of Ilenry Canaday.
Read the full summary
In Equity, and motion for a new trial, in Stewart Superior Court. Decision by Judge Crawford, October Term, 1854. A motion was made to amend the rule nisi for a new trial, by adding two grounds, founded on newly discovered evidence. The Court refused the motion to amend, and this decision is assigned as error. The bill, in this case, was filed to recover a legacy under the will of Ilenry Canaday. By that will, he bequeathed the bulk of his. estate to five legatees, his, daughters. A subsequent item prescribed, “ I hereby direct that the devises and bequests herein made to my said daughters,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
[1.] Has a party the right to amend a motion for a new trial at the hearing, so as to include other grounds besides those originally taken ?
Newly discovered testimony was the foundation of the application in the present case; and it consisted of two items — 1st. A return made by Snelling to the Court of Ordinary, in March, 1845, which he swears he searched for diligently, and was unable to find at the trial, and which he insists will show an indebtedness of the estate of Canaday, to him, of $>ll02 Aoe, and for which he has been allowed no credit.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Miller v. McGlaunSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
- In re GlassDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 1902
- Allen v. BoneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Hegedus v. HegedusSupreme Court of Georgia · 1985
- Hamilton v. ConyersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.