Case Name: Platen vs. The Ordinary of Chatham County
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1878-01
Citations: 60 Ga. 422
Docket Number: 
Parties: Platen vs. The Ordinary of Chatham County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
Platen vs. The Ordinary of Chatham County.
[This case was argued at the last term and decision reserved.]
A plaintiff whose action, in the absence of himself and his counsel, has been dismissed for want of prosecution, has no right to an unconditional order reinstating the same, without first rendering a good and sufficient reason for the absence. The reason rendered must appear m the record or bill of exceptions, otherwise no reversal can be had of a refusal of leave to reinstate unconditionally; the leave granted being conditional on the payment of accrued costs.
Practice in Superior Court. Before Judge Tompkins. Chatham Superior Court. November Term, 1876.
Report unnecessary.
Charles G. Platen, in propria persona, for plaintiff in error.
Jackson, Lawton & Basinger, for defendant.

Opinion:
Bleckley, Judge.
The ground of motion to reinstate a cause being that it was called for trial and dismissed for want of prosecution, without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, and during his absence from the state, the motion ought to have been refused, unconditionally, unless a good reason was shown why the plaintiff was absent, and why he was not i'epresented. If any reason was shown in the court below, it ought to have been set out in the record or the bill of ex ceptions, so that the supreme court could determine whether the case should be reinstated or not. The permission to reinstate, on condition of paying costs, may have been more favorable to the plaintiff than he was entitled to, instead of less favorable. The supreme court not being informed, authoritatively, why he was absent, or why he was not properly represented, cannot hold that he was entitled to reinstate at all, much less that he was entitled to reinstate on better terms than the superior court prescribed.
Judgment affirmed.