Case ID: ga_94/html/0721-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Keller & Brother.
    A written agreement of counsel entered upon a brief of evidence, the agreement being expressed in such terms as necessarily to imply a waiver of objection that the day fixed by order of the court for presenting the brief, having it approved and filing it, had already passed, together with subsequent co-operation with counsel for the movant and the presiding judge in having the brief corrected (the judge having approved it before correction with a reservation that it was subject to correction), will estop such counsel and his client from subsequently taking the position, for the first time, and insisting by a motion to dismiss the motion for a new trial, that the brief was presented, approved and filed too late because done after the time limited by the order had expired. Judgment reversed.
    
    July 23, 1894.
    Motion for a new trial. Before Judge Ealligant. Effingham superior court. May term, 1898.
    
      A. R. Wright and A. C. Wright, for plaintiff in error.
    H. B. Strange, contra.
    
   After verdict for plaintiffs on May 9, defendant during the same term filed a motion for new trial. The grounds of the motion were approved, and an order passed allowing the motion to be heard and determined in vacation. On June 6, defendant presented a brief of the testimony to the judge for his revision and approval. Entered upon said brief was an agreement of counsel; counsel for plaintiff agreeing, “subject to make such corrections as are just and correct, in the hearing of the motion for new trial.” The judge approved the brief “ subject to correction at hearing,” and ordered it filed. It was filed on June 7. Thereafter the motion coming on for hearing, plaintiff moved to dismiss it on the ground that no order was taken at the May term, .authorizing the filing of a brief of the testimony during vacation^ and because the brief was not filed at the term. Previous to the filing of the motion to dismiss, plaintiff’s counsel suggested certain changes in the brief of evidence, which were accepted and agreed to by defendant’s counsel. The motion to dismiss was sustained.