113 Ga. 185 | Ga. | 1901
Because of want of time to hear, during the present term, oral arguments in all civil cases upon the docket, this court, on January 25,1901, passed the following order: “After hearing argument in cases through the Macon circuit, no further arguments in civil cases will be heard at the present term. It is, therefore, ordered that counsel in all the remaining civil cases on the docket for the October term, 1900, be and they are hereby required to file their briefs in the clerk’s office, on or before the 25th day of February. Counsel for plaintiffs in error are required to pay costs upon filing their briefs. Civil Code, § 5580, Buie of Court 15. Oral argument will not thereafter be heard in any case upon said docket, unless, in special instances, expressly so ordered by the court, of its own motion. On Saturday, March 2, all cases then remaining on the docket will be called, and as each case is sounded, motions to continue, to dismiss, to withdraw, to make parties, to perfect records, and all other motions of a preliminary nature will be noted; and no such motion will be afterwards received, the grounds of which existed and might by reasonable diligence have been known at the time of said call. It is further ordered that cases in which no briefs are filed for plaintiffs in error pursuant to this order will be dismissed for want of prosecution, unless a sufficient reason to the contrary be shown.” No brief for plaintiff in error in the present case was filed till February 28, 1901, nor was any motion to continue the case filed on or before February 25. When the docket was called on March 2, counsel for defendant in error offered to waive the provisions of the order requiring a brief to be filed for plaintiff in error on or before February 25, and stated that he was moved to make such offer by reason of the fact that the failure of the counsel for plaintiff in error to file a brief in accordance with the order was the result of providential cause. Counsel for plaintiff in error was not present at the call, and no motion to continue or for other purpose was made in behalf of the plaintiff in error. Under the facts stated, we are constrained by the terms of the order to dismiss this writ of error. The order expressly declares “ that cases in which no briefs are filed for plaintiffs in error pursuant to this order will be dismissed for want of prosecution, unless a sufficient reason to the contrary be shown.” In view of the provisions of the order, the case must be treated as though it had been called for argument on the 25th of February, and, therefore, coming within the operation
Writ of error dismissed.
