Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pool

Lumpkin, Justice.

1, 2. A case was tried in the superior court on February 13th, 1893, during a term which continued longer *411than thirty days, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. During the term, and before the expiration of the thirty days, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial and a brief of the evidence. Upon the latter was au entry, signed by the judge, in these words: “This brief of evidence subject to the supervision of the court.” On the day the motion for a new trial was filed, it was duly entered on the motion docket, and a consent order was passed setting the motion down…