Smith v. Brand
Supreme Court of Georgia
.New Trial. Continuance. Absence of Counsel. Before Judge Davis. "Walton Superior Court. August Term, 1871. Smith filed a bill for discovery and for an account and settlement of a partnership between himself and Brand, averring that Brand was in his debt. Brand, by his counsel, John J. Eloyd, answered, admitting the partnership, etc., but denied that he owed Smith anything.
Read the full summary
.New Trial. Continuance. Absence of Counsel. Before Judge Davis. "Walton Superior Court. August Term, 1871. Smith filed a bill for discovery and for an account and settlement of a partnership between himself and Brand, averring that Brand was in his debt. Brand, by his counsel, John J. Eloyd, answered, admitting the partnership, etc., but denied that he owed Smith anything. At an adjourned term, Brand moved to continue for the absence of his leading counsel, Eloyd and Billups, but why they were away did not appear. It was tried in the absence of Floyd and Billups, and resulted in a verdict…
1Opinion of the Court
McCay, Judge.
It is very clear to us that the defendant below was seriously damaged by the absence of his counsel, and it is equally clear that the absence of the counsel was for very good reasons. Judge Floyd was misled by the Judge himself, and Mr. Billups was absent from providential cause.
We think the discretion of the Judge was not improperly exercised in granting this new trial. The principles of justice required it. Courts ought not to permit themselves to be made the instruments of injustice; and though it be true that if parties get into trouble from want of diligence, they can claim…
2Cited by5 opinions
- BOWEN v. SAVOYSupreme Court of Georgia · 2020
- Hyser v. HyserSupreme Court of Colorado · 1912
- Pritchett v. Commissioners of Bartow CountySupreme Court of Georgia · 1894
- Wilcox v. BowenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Abrams v. Planters BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922