Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900

Smedley v. Williams

Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided October 30, 1900 · Lewis

112 Ga. 114; 37 S.E. 111; 1900 Ga. LEXIS 58

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Braziel v. Hunter (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)
Stoner v. McDougall (Ga. 1975)
Connor v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1909)
Hodges v. Doctors Hospital (Ga. Ct. App. 1979)
Trammell v. Throgmorton (Ga. 1954)
Smith v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
Throgmorton v. Trammell (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)
Webb v. Nobles (Ga. 1943)
Carmichael v. City of Jackson (Ga. 1942)
Beeland v. Butler-Payne Lumber Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
Peavy v. Peavy (Ga. 1928)
Grantham v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1921)
Jackson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1919)
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Nelson (Ga. 1916)
Thornton v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1915)
Tyler & Tomlinson v. Arnett (Ga. Ct. App. 1913)
Jemison v. Polk (Ga. 1908)
McMullen v. Bank (Ga. 1905)
Gould v. Johnston & Co. (Ga. 1905)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Lewis, J.

1. There was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial for want of service of a copy of the rule nisi issued thereon upon the respondent' in the motion, it not appearing that such service had been waived. Civil Code, §5475.

2. Such service is not waived merely because counsel for the respondent informed counsel for the movant that a named day for the hearing of the motion would be suitable to the former.

3. Nor was there, in view of the conflicting evidence set forth in the record, any abuse of discretion in refusing to continue the hearing so as to allow time and opportunity for service to be made.

Submitted October 6, Decided October 30, 1900.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Longley. City court of La-Grange. April 2, 1900.

Harwell & Lovejoy, for movant. E. T. Moon, contra.

4. It is not the duty of a sheriff to serve official papers until the same are placed in his hands for that purpose.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.