Stone v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
| Citation | 63 Ga. 309 |
| Parties | Stone, caveator. v. Taylor, propounder. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]
New trial. Before Judge Crawford. Muscogee Superior Court. November Adjourned Term, 1878.
Report unnecessary.
Porter Ingram; Thornton & Grimes; Johnson & Thornton, for plaintiff in error.
B. H. Crawford; Smith & LITTLE, for defendant.
*BlECKlEy, Justice.
1. On the point of practice the views of the court are set forth in the first head-note. The motion for a new trial was made in term, and it was by consent that the simultaneous filing of the brief of evidence was dispensed with. The order taken in term to hear the motion in vacation, put the judge in full possession of the case at the time appointed, and continuances from time to time were had, so that there was no gap or break. It was as if the first day had been lengthened, or all the sittings had taken place at different hours of the same day. Looking at the judge as a court pro hag vice, he could, for sufficient cause, grant further time to perfect and file the brief of evidence. He had exactly the same power in that respect as if he had been sitting in term; and so had he in respect to adjourning over from one day to another. When a court is once on foot in a regular, legitimate way, it requires no consent of parties to run it. The law makes it self-supporting. The motion for a new trial did not perish on the judge's hands, but kept its vitality until he passed judgment refusing to grant it. To that judgment a writ of error lies; and the motion here to dismiss the writ is consequently overruled.
2. We think, however, there is no good ground for reversal. The charge of the court was pertinent, full and correct. Nothing material was omitted. The request to charge was not denied erroneously. The evidence warranted the verdict.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webb v. Nobles
...at such later date to adjourn the hearing to another date in vacation and act upon it at such subsequent time. Code, § 70-302; Stone v. Taylor, 63 Ga. 309; Dorsey Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 113 Ga. 564, 38 S.E. 958. A motion for new trial does not become automatically void because of failu......
-
Throgmorton v. Trammell
...to prepare for hearing, it is no ground for dismissal that such service was not made within any stated number of days. In Stone v. Taylor, 63 Ga. 309, and Dorsey v. Central of Ga. Ry., 113 Ga. 564, 38 S.E. 958, it was established that a motion for new trial would not be dismissed simply bec......
-
Cole v. Ill. Sewing Maoh. Co
...term open, relatively to that case, until the motion shall have been decided (Herz v. Frank, 104 Ga. 638, 30 S. E. 797); and in Stone v. Taylor, 63 Ga. 309, the Supreme Court uses the following language: "The order, taken in term, to hear the motion in vacation, put the judge in full posses......
-
Cole v. Illinois Sewing Mach. Co.
...the term open, relatively to that case, until the motion shall have been decided (Herz v. Frank, 104 Ga. 638, 30 S.E. 797); and in Stone v. Taylor, 63 Ga. 309, the Court uses the following language: "The order, taken in term, to hear the motion in vacation, put the judge in full possession ......