Buchanan v. James
| Decision Date | 11 May 1910 |
| Citation | 68 S.E. 72,134 Ga. 475 |
| Parties | BUCHANAN v. JAMES, Com'r, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A motion for a new trial is a means of seeking to have a retrial or re-examination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision by a jury, report of a referee, or a decision by the court thereon. It is an application for a retrial of the facts of the case. 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2708; Castellaw v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97, 31 S.E. 801; 5 Words & Phrases, 4788 et seq.
The grant of a nonsuit terminates the case, without a final passing upon the issues of fact by a jury, referee, or judge. It is a ruling by the judge that the plaintiff, under the evidence presented by him, has not made out such a case as to entitle him to have the jury pass upon the issues of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a determination of the issues of fact. Under the practice in this state, it does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and seeking to make out his case by the introduction of evidence on the trial thereof.
It follows, from the distinction which will appear from the two preceding headnotes, that where the presiding judge grants a nonsuit, and thus terminates the case before a verdict or decision upon the issues of fact, a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of testing the correctness of such ruling. See Hudson v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 85 Ga. 203 (3), 11 S.E. 605; Central Railroad Co. v. Folds, 86 Ga. 42, 12 S.E. 216; Swain v. Macon Fire Ins. Co., 102 Ga. 96, 103, 29 S.E. 147; Southern Railway Co. v. James, 114 Ga. 198, 39 S.E. 849; City of Atlanta v. Miller, 125 Ga. 495, 54 S.E. 538.
There was no error in dismissing the motion for new trial.
Error from Superior Court, Early County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.
Action by Mrs. W. A. Buchanan against D. W. James, Commissioner, and others. Judgment of nonsuit, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Park & Collins and Pottle & Glessner, for plaintiff in error.
R. H. Sheffield and Pope & Bennet, for defendants in error.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trammell v. Shirley, (No. 19042.)
...Where the judge grants a nonsuit, "a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of testing the correctness of such ruling." Buchanan v. James, 134 Ga. 475 (2, 3), 68 S. E. 72. (i) "Attacks upon a decree furnish no ground of a motion for a new trial." Fowler v. Johnson, 151 Ga. 122 (c), 1......
-
Trammell v. Shirley
...Where the judge grants a nonsuit, "a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of testing the correctness of such ruling." Buchanan v. James, 134 Ga. 475 (2, 3), 68 S.E. (i) "Attacks upon a decree furnish no ground of a motion for a new trial." Fowler v. Johnson, 151 Ga. 122 (c), 106 S.......
-
Walker v. Cent. Of Ga. Ry. Co
...the jury pass upon the issues of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a determination of the issues of fact." Buchanan v. James, 134 Ga. 475 (2), 68 S. E. 72. In that case it was held that a motion for new trial was not the proper way to review such a judgment. In Van Dyke v. Van D......
-
Walker v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
... ... the issues of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a ... determination of the issues of fact." Buchanan v ... James, 134 Ga. 475 (2), 68 S.E. 72. In that case it was ... held that a motion for new trial was not the proper way to ... review such a ... ...