Austin v. State
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtHines, J.
1. 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 a continuance (Renal Code, § 990) ; but a continuance will not be granted for the absence of counsel attending eases pending in another court, except in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Peters v. Peters, 41 Ga. 242; Cotton States Life Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 220; Hatcher v. Bowen, Id. 840; Carroll v. Groover, 27 Ga. App. 747 (110 S. E. 30); Hamrick v. Stewart, 29 Ga. App. 220 (114 S. E. 723).(a) A…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Cotton States Life Insurance v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Wall v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Curry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1915
- Burnett v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Wright v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1855
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Gore v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Daniels v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1926
- Rutledge v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Crumady v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Davis v. BarnesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1981
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.