Brissette v. Munday
| Decision Date | 26 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23431,23431 |
| Parties | John L. BRISSETTE v. B. C. MUNDAY, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where the jury in a tort action against two alleged tort-feasors, who were sued jointly and severally, found a verdict against one defendant only, and that defendant appealed from the denial of his motion for new trial, it was error for the Court of Appeals in its decision on that appeal to grant a new trial against the co-defendant of the appellant.
Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, M. D. McLendon, Atlanta, for appellant.
Glenn Frick, N. Forrest Montet, Henry L. Bowden, Hamilton Lokey, Atlanta, for appellees.
Application for certiorari was filed by John L. Brissette seeking a review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in Munday v. Brissette, 113 Ga.App. 147, 148 S.E.2d 55. This court granted the writ to consider the assignment of error asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in entering a judgment, not only granting a new trial to the appellant, but also granting a new trial as to the applicant in certiorari, John L. Brissette, a co-defendant of the appellant in the lower court.
Suzanne E. Brissette brought an action for tort against B. C. Munday, Jr., and John L. Brissette, alleging that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for injuries she received in an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict against Munday only, in the amount of $15,000. Judgment was entered on the verdict on October 5, 1964, and on October 16, 1964, Munday filed a motion for new trial on the general grounds. On October 16, 1964, the plaintiff, Suzanne E. Brissette, filed a motion for new trial against both defendants, or, in the alternative, as to John L. Brissette only. On April 16, 1965, Munday offered an amendment to his motion for new trial, seeking to name his co-defendant, John L. Brissette, as respondent. On April 22, 1965, the trial judge entered an order making John L. Brissette a party to the motion for new trial filed by Munday. On July 30, 1965, the trial judge entered an order denying the motion for new trial of Munday, and deferring any ruling on the motion for new trial of Suzanne E. Brissette until Munday had an opportunity to appeal the judgment denying him a new trial.
Munday filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, and that court reversed the ruling of the trial judge denying the motion for new trial of Munday. In the concluding sentence of the opinion of the Court of Appeals it is held: 'A new trial should have been granted as to both defendants.' Munday v. Brissette, 113 Ga.App. 147, 148...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lops v. Lops
...[N]o change in result was intended." Munday v. Brissette, 113 Ga.App. 147, 151, 148 S.E.2d 55, 60, rev'd on other grounds, 222 Ga. 162, 149 S.E.2d 110 (1966) (citing E. Freeman Leverett, The Appellate Procedure Act of 1965, 1 Ga. State Bar Journal 451, 456 (1965)). Accordingly, the legislat......
-
Durrett v. Farrar
...our Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Code Ann. § 2-3708 Const. art. 6, § 2, par. 8. Such a binding ruling was made in Brissette v. Munday, 222 Ga. 162, 149 S.E.2d 110, which held that a joint tortfeasor against whom a new trial has been granted has no standing to complain as to the verdic......
-
McClure v. Gower
...on appeal." See Munday v. Brissette, 113 Ga.App. 147, 150(1), 148 S.E.2d 55 (1966), rev'd on other grounds sub nom., Brissette v. Munday, 222 Ga. 162, 149 S.E.2d 110 (1966). However, OCGA § 5-6-38(a) provides that, in lieu of filing a cross appeal, "the appellee may at his option file an in......
-
Pickett v. Taylor
...v. Brown, 122 Ga.App. 316, 176 S.E.2d 621 (1970); Munday v. Brissette, 113 Ga.App. 147, 148 S.E.2d 55, rev'd on other grounds, 222 Ga. 162, 149 S.E.2d 110 (1966); see generally, 2 Blashfield Automobile Law & Practice § 105.18 The sole point of dispute at trial dealt with the limit which app......