Case Name: Butler v. Mooty, administrator
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1919-04-16
Citations: 23 Ga. App. 572
Docket Number: 10279
Parties: Butler v. Mooty, administrator.
Judges: Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 23
Pages: 572–573

Head Matter:
10279.
Butler v. Mooty, administrator.
Decided April 16, 1919.
Motion for a new trial; from city court of LaGrange—Arthur Greer, judge pro hac vice. December 11, 1918.
From the bill of exceptions it appears that a judge pro hac vice, by agreement of the parties and under “orders regularly entered on the minutes, in accordance with the requirements of the law,” presided on the trial of this case at the March quarterly term of the city court of LaGrange. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant filed at the same term a motion for a new trial, and at that term and during a session of the court when the judge of the city court was presiding the judge pro hac vice signed a rule nisi directing the plaintiff to show cause on a named day in vacation why the motion should not be granted, and signed an order extending until the hearing the time for presenting a brief of the evidence. The bill of exceptions states that these orders were not signed while the judge pro hac vice was upon the bench presiding, but were signed while he was in the bar of the court. By subsequent order he extended the time for the hearing of the motion for a new trial, and at the December quarterly term, 1918, he approved the brief of the evidence and an amendment to the motion. The plaintiff then moved to dismiss the motion, because the rule nisi “was not issued from the city court of LaGrange, it not being signed by the judge of said court,” and because the order continuing th.e.;hearing of the motion was not signed by the judge of the city court.. The judge pro hae vice sustained this motion and dismissed the motion for a new trial; and to this the defendant excepted.

Opinion:
Luke, J.
This case is controlled by the decision in Gainesville Buggy and Wagon Co. v. Morrow, 23 Ga. App. 268 (98 S. E. 100). The judge pro hac vice erred in dismissing the motion for a new trial. Let it he reinstated.
Judgment reversed.
Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.
Hatton Lovejoy, Duke Davis, for plaintiff in error.
M. U. Mooty, contra.