From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burkhalter v. Durrence

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 15, 1956
91 S.E.2d 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)

Opinion

36052.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1956.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Carr. Reidsville City Court. November 12, 1955.

H. H. Elders, for plaintiff in error.

J. Max Cheney, contra.


When counsel goes to trial without the presence of the defendant, but makes no motion for a continuance and does not suggest his desire to have his client present at the trial, it will not require the granting of a new trial. This is true even though the defendant contends he possesses evidence which would have brought the trial to a different conclusion. "There is full power on the part of the counsel to represent the client, and it is just the same as if the client were there in person." Williams v. Simmons, 79 Ga. 649, 654 ( 7 S.E. 133). The trial judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Denmond v. Hillyer, 129 Ga. 698 ( 59 S.E. 806); McAnally v. Bank of Abbeville, 22 Ga. App. 178 ( 95 S.E. 737).

Judgment affirmed. Nichols, J., concurs. Felton, C. J., concurs in the judgment.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 15, 1956.


Summaries of

Burkhalter v. Durrence

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 15, 1956
91 S.E.2d 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
Case details for

Burkhalter v. Durrence

Case Details

Full title:BURKHALTER v. DURRENCE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 15, 1956

Citations

91 S.E.2d 774 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956)
91 S.E.2d 774

Citing Cases

Chapman v. Avco Financial Services Leasing Co.

It is true that a party in a civil action may choose not to be present at the trial of the case and to be…

Bembry v. Pugh

[Cits.]" Burkhalter v. Durrence, 93 Ga. App. 374, 374-375 ( 91 S.E.2d 774) (1956). Judgment affirmed. Banke,…