Continental Aid Ass'n v. Hand
| Decision Date | 22 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | 9460. |
| Parties | CONTINENTAL AID ASS'N v. HAND. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the facts of this case, the recovery of attorney's fees was a question of fact for the jury, and their finding will not be disturbed.
The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
On error, only points made in the petition for certiorari can be reviewed.
Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; Moses Wright, Judge.
Action by Charlie Hand against the Continental Aid Association. Judgment for plaintiff in the justice court, certiorari by defendant was overruled in the superior court, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
J. L Wallace, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.
L. H Covington, of Rome, for defendant in error.
Charlie Hand brought suit in a justice's court against the Continental Aid Association upon a contract of insurance for accident benefits. A verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, for $35 principal, $2.50 interest, $10 attorney's fees, and costs of suit. The insurance company sued out a writ of certiorari, and the judge of the superior court overruled the certiorari. The bill of exceptions assigns error on the judgment overruling the certiorari, upon seven grounds of error which are materially different from the assignments of error in the petition for certiorari.
In determining whether the judge erred in his judgment overruling the certiorari this court can only consider the assignments of error made in the petition for certiorari. "The plaintiff in error cannot, by bill of exceptions raise points which were not made in the county court or in the certiorari." Perry v. Brunswick & Western Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 819, 47 S.E. 172(1); Duren v. Thomasville, 125 Ga. 1, 53 S.E. 814(3); Bryant v. Ridgway, 126 Ga. 733, 55 S.E. 932(1); Fine v. Sou. Express Co., 10 Ga.App. 165, 73 S.E. 35. The assignments in the petition for certiorari were: (1) That the court erred in overruling the demurrer filed by the defendant. (2) That the court erred in denying the motion to strike the amendment to plaintiff's petition. (3) That the verdict and judgment are contrary to law. (4) That the verdict and judgment are contrary to the evidence and against the principles of justice and equity. (5) That the verdict and judgment are excessive and contrary to the evidence, and that a recovery could only be for the sum of $12.50 on the same. (6) That the plaintiff could not recover attorney's fees, for that the plaintiff failed to show bad faith on the part of the petitioner.
The first two assignments will not be considered, as they were not argued in the brief, and will be treated as abandoned. The third assignment--that the verdict is contrary to law--is not a specific assignment of error, and cannot be considered. Callaway v. Atlanta, 6 Ga.App. 355, 64 S.E. 1105.
The fifth assignment--that the verdict is excessive etc.--amounts to no more than an amplification of the general grounds that the verdict is contrary to the evidence, as it does not point out wherein or for what reason the verdict is excessive. "Assignments of error must be specific, whether contained in a bill of exceptions or in a petition for certiorari."...
To continue reading
Request your trial