Thompson v. Hays, 45 S.E. 970 (Ga. 1903). · Go Syfert
Thompson v. Hays, 45 S.E. 970 (Ga. 1903). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
38 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Stone Mountain Properties, Ltd. v. Helmer (gactapp, 1976-09-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1905 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1905 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stone Mountain Properties, Ltd. v. Helmer
Ga. Ct. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
By signing the paper Sivell placed himself in a position where he was required either to withdraw his offer before Hogan did something to render himself bound, or to deliver the cotton and complete the offer in the event Hogan became bound to an acceptance.” Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 167, 172, 173 ( 46 SE 67 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet (2×)
Ga. · 1940 · confidence medium
Swell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 167, 170 ( 46 S. E. 67 ); Sims v. Scheussler, 5 Ga. App. 850, 856 ( 64 S. E. 99 ); Lacey v. Hutchinson, 5 Ga. App. 865, 867 ( 64 S. E. 105 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fruit Dispatch Co. v. Petropol
Ga. Ct. App. · 1920 · confidence medium
Sheffield v. Whitfield, 6 Ga. App. 762 (2), ( 65 S. E. 807 ); Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 167, 172 ( 46 S. E. 67 ).
cited Cited "see" Luke v. Livingston
Ga. Ct. App. · 1911 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sivell v. Hogan, 119 Ga. 167 ( 46 S. E. 67 ).
Thompson
v.
Hays
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Dec 10, 1903.
45 S.E. 970
Griffith & Weatherly for plaintiff., Oscar Reese and Brown & Roof, for defendant.
Simmons.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Simmons, C. J.

1. When, upon the call for trial of a case in which an issuable defense had been filed, the sole counsel for the defendant stated in his place (the statement being considered by the judge as though made under Oath) “ that he was too unwell to attend to any business, and could not possibly go to trial, on that account,” and there was no' counter-showing, it was error to refuse a continuance and to proceed with the trial in the absence of such counsel.

2. The case having been taken to the superior court by certiorari, and the above facts having been verified by the answer, it was not error to sustain the certiorari and grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.