
    The Central Railroad and Banking Co. v. Farley.
    Where during term an order was passed that a motion for a new trial be heard in vacation at such time and place as the presiding judge should appoint, and thereafter the hearing was set for May 8th, after notice by the judge to the parties, and the motion was then heard and fully argued, and the judge, without passing any further order at that time, reserved his decision until the 11th of June following,- and on the last named date passed an order in vacation granting a new trial: Held, that the order granted in term to hear the motion in vacation implied that it might be decided in vacation on the day of- the hearing, or any subsequent day upon which the judge might be prepared to render the decision. After the case was fully heard, no order was needed fixing any day for rendering and announcing the decision.
    March 31, 1892.
    By two Justices.
    Argued at the last term.
    New trial. Practice. Before Judge Boynton. Spalding superior court. February term, 1891.
    Farley sued the railroad company for damages from personal injuries. A verdict was rendered for the defendant. During the term a motion for new trial was made. The motion was not heard then, but an order was passed that the motion he heard in vacation at such time and place as the presiding judge should fix, and that plaintiff have twenty days to prepare and file the brief of testimony for approval in thirty days, the same to be approved at or before the final hearing. This order was passed February 12, 1891, during the term at which the case was tried. On March 3, 1891, the order was extended for twenty days, and on March 23, was extended until the first Monday in May, 1891 On May 8th, on notice by the judge, the motion was heard' so far as to .hear argument of counsel Counsel on both sides were fully heard on the argument of the motion, without any motion to dismiss. No order was passed to consider the motion on any further day, but the court of its own motion took until the 11th of June, 1891, to consider it, and on the last named date passed an order granting a new trial. The' defendant excepted to the action of the court in considering find deciding the'motion on June 11th, after the argument, without passing any order permitting the same, and also to the grant of-the new trial.
   Judgment affirmed.

Hall & Hammond and J. J. Hunt, for plaintiff in error.

Beck & Cleveland, by brief, contra.  