Davis v. Dula, 35460
Decision Date | 28 January 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 35460,No. 1,35460,1 |
Citation | 91 Ga.App. 448,85 S.E.2d 825 |
Parties | R. W. DAVIS v. J. A. DULA |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence did not authorize the verdict; therefore the court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.
J. A. Dula sued Robert W. Davis for rent allegedly due under a lease agreement. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant's motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds, was denied and he excepts.
Robert W. Reynolds, Albany, for plaintiff in error.
Jesse W. Walters, Peacock, Perry, Kelley & Walters, Albany, for defendant in error.
The evidence was as follows: The plaintiff testified:
The defendant testified:
In his amended petition the plaintiff alleges the amount of indebtedness to be $669.35 and he is restricted to that amount if he is entitled to recover. Under the evidence the jury could have made but one of two findings: either that the plaintiff was entitled to $669.35, the amount sued for, or that the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount because of the agreement testified to by the defendant. If the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the evidence, he was entitled to recover the full sum of $669.35, and a verdict for $250 was unauthorized. Hood v. Ware, 34 Ga. 328(2).
The plaintiff in error contends that, since the plaintiff admitted that the amount sued for was owed to both the plaintiff and John Head, Head was a necessary party to the action, and a verdict in favor of the plaintiff alone was not authorized by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tallent v. McKelvey
...87 S.E. 681; Travers v. Macon Ry. &c. Co., 19 Ga.App. 15, 90 S.E. 732; Hill v. Cloud, 48 Ga.App. 506, 507, 173 S.E. 190; Davis v. Dula, 91 Ga.App. 448, 85 S.E.2d 825; accord, Oliver v. Coleman, 36 Ga. 552, 553, 555; Buchanan v. Hieber, 78 Ga.App. 434, 439, 50 S.E.2d 815; State Highway Bd. v......
- General Acceptance Corp. v. Anthony