Dimmick v. Pullen
| Decision Date | 01 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 44357,44357,3 |
| Citation | 120 Ga.App. 743,172 S.E.2d 196 |
| Parties | I. C. DIMMICK v. J. B. PULLEN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Preston L. Holland, Hapeville, for appellant.
Huie & Harland, Terrill A. Parker, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case involves an appeal by J. C. Dimmick, appellant here, from a judgment of the trial court based upon a directed verdict in favor of J. B. Pullen, appellee here, for the principal balance due on a promissory note executed by Dimmick as maker to Pullen as payee, sued on by way of counterclaim by Pullen against Dimmick in a suit originally filed by Dimmick against Pullen, which as to the main suit was disposed of by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Dimmick v. Pullen, 224 Ga. 452, 162 S.E.2d 427. In the judgment of the trial court in the main case from which the appeal was disposed of in Dimmick v. Pullen, supra, the trial court ordered that the issues raised by the counterclaim should later be tried before a jury and the present appeal is from the judgment of the trial of the counterclaim from which the appeal before this court was sued out by Dimmick. The errors enumerated on this appeal are adjudicated by this opinion.
1. Whether or not a party may be allowed to reopen his case after he has rested and present additional evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. Jackson v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 7 Ga.App. 644(4), 67 S.E. 898; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hand, 25 Ga.App. 90, 102 S.E. 647; McBride v. Johns, 73 Ga.App. 444(3), 36 S.E.2d 822.
It does not appear from the record in this case that the court abused its discretion in allowing the appellee to reopen its case for the purpose of tendering certain documentary evidence which had been previously authenticated and identified. Accordingly, it was not error, as contended, to deny appellant's motion for a directed verdict made upon the ground that certain documents crucial to appellee's claim (seeking a recovery on the unpaid balance of a promissory note) were not in evidence where the appellee was allowed to reopen his case and have such documents admitted into evidence. With such documents in evidence a verdict was not demanded for the appellant.
2. The remaining enumerations in this case are that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for directed verdict.
The appellant has cited several cases stating that the question for decision in passing on a motion for directed verdict is whether the evidence demands a verdict in favor of the movant or, stated otherwise, that the motion should be denied if there is any evidence in the record which if believed would authorize a verdict for the opposing party. In further support of appellant's contention there is only a conclusory statement that at the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butts v. Davis, 47045
...Jordan v. State, 124 Ga.App. 135(1), 183 S.E.2d 54; Corbin v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 125 Ga.App. 281, 187 S.E.2d 312; Dimmick v. Pullen, 120 Ga.App. 743, 172 S.E.2d 196; Crider v. State, 115 Ga.App. 347, 154 S.E.2d 2. In this suit naming an employee and his master as defendants there was an al......
-
Holder v. J. F. Kearley, Inc.
...the trial court to re-open after both parties have closed. Ricker v. Brancale, 113 Ga.App. 447(2), 148 S.E.2d 468; Dimmick v. Pullen, 120 Ga.App. 743, 744(1), 172 S.E.2d 196; Maloy v. Dixon, 127 Ga.App. 151(4), 161-163, 193 S.E.2d 19. The trial court has not been shown to have abused its di......
-
Vester v. Mug A Bug Pest Control, Inc.
... ... Jackson v. State, 213 Ga.App. 420, 421, 444 S.E.2d 854 (1994); Dimmick v. [231 Ga. App. 647] ... Pullen, 120 Ga.App. 743, 744-745(2), 172 S.E.2d 196 (1969) ... Notwithstanding such failure, the record ... ...
-
Fidelity-Phenix Ins. Co. v. Mauldin
...after the call of this case. This also applies to the complaint made as to charging with regard to these regulations. Dimmick v. Pullen, 120 Ga.App. 743(2), 172 S.E.2d 196. (d) The only remaining objection asserts that the court erred in charging that the failure to comply with the fire reg......