Travelers Insurance Co. v. Hill
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtSutton, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The plaintiff in error contends in its exceptions pendente lite, on which error is assigned in the main bill of exceptions, that the court erred in refusing its request for a continuance to allow it time to make a request to have the plaintiff examined by a physician of its choice. It is well-settled law that “All applications for continuances are addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court” in which the case is pending. Code, § 81-1419; Williams v. Baber, 61 Ga. App. 56 (1) (5 S. E. 2d, 703), and citations. In the present case, the trial judge…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Cato v. Ætna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. SouthSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
- New York Life Insurance v. WilliamsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of N. Y. v. BarronSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dittmar v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
- Parker v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997