Ellington v. Hall

• Decision Date: 23 July 1894
• Citation: 19 S.E. 992,94 Ga. 724
• Parties: ELLINGTON v. HALL
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

19 S.E. 992

94 Ga. 724

ELLINGTON

v.HALL

Supreme Court of Georgia.

July 23, 1894.

New Trial—Brief of Evidence — Time of Filing.

This case is ruled in principle by Railroad Co. v. Johnson. 59 Ga. 626: Pease v. Pease, 66 Ga. 277; Usry v. Phillips, 68 Ga. 815; McCord v. Harden, 69 Ga. 747; Arnold v. Hall, 70 Ga. 445, Rich v. State, 74 Ga. 811. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Taliaferro county; II. C. Roney, Judge.

Action by H. Hall against S. S. Ellington, administrator. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, from a judgment denying a new trial, defendant brings error. Affirmed. The following is the official report: The case was tried at the February term, 1893, of the superior court. On March 1st, upon motion for a new trial, the court ordered that the plaintiff show cause on the 24th of August, 1893, why the motion should not be granted. On March 2d the court passed an order reciting the making of the motion, and the approval of the grounds thereof, and proceeding thus: "And it appearing that it is impossible to make and complete a brief of the testimony in said case upon a judgment [adjournment?] of the court, it is therefore ordered and adjudged by the court that said motion stand continued until the ——day of ——, 1893, and

that it be heard at chambers, and that plaintiff have until 15 inst. to make out and file a brief of testimony, without prejudice." On August 24, 1893, the court dismissed the motion on the ground that no brief of testimony had been prepared, filed, or approved. The movant excepted.

J. W. Hixon, for plaintiff in error.

H. M. Holden, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.