Mitchell v. The Memphis Br. Rail Rd. & Steamboat Co.
| Decision Date | 30 September 1853 |
| Docket Number | No. 18.,18. |
| Citation | 19 Ga. 85 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Hooper & Mitchell, plaintiffs in error. vs. The Memphis Br. Rail Road & Steamboat Company, defendants in error. |
Motion, in Floyd Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, June Term, 1855.
Messrs. Hooper & Mitchell, as Attorneys of Joseph J. Printup, obtained a judgment against the R. R. & Steamboat Co. for $6,735. They gave notice in writing, to the defendant, of their claim for fees in that case, as well as for a gen-eral balance of fees. Subsequently, the defendant in ft, fa. paid the whole amount thereof to D. S. Printup, as Attorney for Joseph J. Printup, in whose hands the ft. fa. was. This was a motion to reopen the ft. fa. for the amount of their fees in this case, as well as for $300, the amount of two fees in two other causes which had been settled by the parties. The Court ordered the ft. fa. reopened for the fees in that case, but refused the rule as to the balance. This refusal is assigned as error by Hooper & Mitchell.
The Memphis Branch R. R. & Steamboat Co. also sued out a bill of exceptions on various grounds; but the only one considered by the Supreme Court, was the motion for a continuance, on the following grounds:
1st. Because the original bill of injunction, enjoining the proceeding of the ft. fa. which was sought, by the rule of Hooper & Mitchell's Attorney, to be opened for their fees, was lost or mislaid, it being important in the hearing of this cause, in order to show that Hooper & Mitchell abandoned the causes upon the filing of this bill of injunction.
2dly. Because defendants, and the Attorney for defendants, had only within the last three days previous to the hearing, come within the knowledge of testimony which would clearly show that Daniel R. Mitchell, of the said firm of Hooper & Mitchell, had positively agreed, about the time said suits were commenced, to attend to them for Printup without charge, which facts were unknown to defendants or their Attorneys, until within three days of the hearing; and then too late to have the testimony which could have been shown by Achilles D. Shackelford, Esqr., who resides in Gordon county.
The Court would hear no showing, and ordered the cause to proceed.
This refusal to continue, is assigned as error by the said R. R. & Steamboat Co.
Printup, for R. R. & Steamboat Co.
Wright, for Hooper & Mitchell.
By the Court. —Lumpkin, J., delivering the opinion.
We hold that the continuance asked for should have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Parker
...in court a long time is no reason for a refusal of a further continuance, when the party applying is not chargeable with delay. Hooper v. Memphis, 19 Ga. 85. Undue haste generally retards the final consummation of object in view. It seems to have been so in this case. (2) It should be state......
-
Chester v. Bouchillon
...a continuance was not error. Vaughn & Co. v. Saul, 143 Ga.App. 74, 80(4), 237 S.E.2d 622 (1977) and cit. Hooper & Mitchell v. Memphis Branch R. & Steamship Co., 19 Ga. 85(1) (1855), and Earnest v. Napier, 15 Ga. 306(3) (1853), cited by the appellants, do not militate against our 2. The appe......
- Chambers v. Sloan