Case ID: ga_68/html/0815-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Speer, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Usry vs. Phillips.
    Where the movant in a motion for new .trial departs from the strict law, and enters into a consent order to file a brief of evidence within thirty days and to have the motion heard at a specified time in vacation, time is of the' essence of the contract. To file a brief neither agreed upon nor approved is not a compliance witn the order ; and upon the call of such motion for hearing, it will be dismissed on motion. 49 Rule of Court; Pease vs. Pease, September Term, 1881.
   Speer, Justice.

[A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendant moved for a new trial. He took an order “ that the defendant be allowed thirty days to file a brief of evidence with the clerk of the court, and the same be heard at Warren superior court.” A brief of evidence was filed within thirty days. When the motion for new trial was called for a hearing, on motion it was dismissed on this ground, and error was alleged thereon.]