Legal Opinion

Progressive Life Insurance v. Haygood

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 13, 1936No. 25135PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

“The illness or absence, from providential cause, of counsel where there is but one, or of the leading counsel where there are more than one, shall be a sufficient ground for continuance: Provided, the party making the application will swear that he can not go safely to trial without the services of such absent counsel, and that he expects his services at the next term, and that said application is not, made for delay only.” Code of 1933, § 81-1413. “A motion to continue for absence of counsel must affirmatively disclose” these essentials. Austin v. State, 160 Ga. 509 (1, a) (128 S. E. 791).…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pilgrim Health & Life Insurance v. ChismCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  2. Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  3. Kennedy v. DukesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Buffalo Insurance Co. v. SteinbergCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  2. Woods v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1975
  3. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
  4. Mosley v. BridgesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
  5. Keith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API