Hays v. Westbrook
| Decision Date | 13 May 1895 |
| Parties | HAYS. v. WESTBROOK. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
New Trial—Motion Out or Term—Newlt-Discovered Evidence.
While motions for new trials, made out of term, upon extraordinary grounds, are not favored by the courts, under the special facts of this case the court below did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Dougherty county; B. B. Bower, Judge.
Action by S. L. Hays, administrator, against R. N. Westbrook. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order granting a new trial, plaintiff brings error. Brought forward from the last term. Code, 8§ 4271a-4271c. Affirmed.
Wooten & Wooten, for plaintiff in error.
W. T. Jones and Hall & Hammond, for defendant in error.
The court below did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. It seems to us that the movant exercised all the diligence the law requires. Prior to the trial, inquiries were made of the executor of Lockett for such papers as might throw light upon the transactions between Lockett, Rust, and Johnson touching the property in question, and careful search was made among papers belonging to the estate, and in every other place where it was supposed such papers might be found; and the deed from Rust and Johnson to Lockett, upon which the extraordinary motion for a new trial was based, was not found until after this court had affirmed the judgment of the court below. It was found accidentally while a search for papers connected with another case was being made in a place where, up to that time, it was not supposed that any of Lockett's papers were. Until then the movant was ignorant that such a paper was in existence, or had ever been executed. Rust, the only one of the parties to the deed who was alive when the litigation arose, was an old man; his memory was poor; and, when examined as a witness at the trial, he had no recollection of such a paper. The evidence is not merely cumulative, and is such that on another trial it would probably change the result. Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State, 31880.
...Towler v. State, 24 Ga.App. 362, 100 S.E. 787. 2. Motions for new trial on extraordinary grounds are not favored. See Hays, Adm'r v. Westbrook, 96 Ga. 219, 22 S.E. 893; Reese v. State, 18 Ga. App. 289, 89 S.E. 303; Minyard v. State, 18 Ga. App. 312, 89 S.E. 379; Davis et al. v. State, 41 Ga......
-
Taylor v. State
... ... State, 24 Ga.App. 362, 100 S.E. 787 ... 2 ... Motions for new trial on extraordinary grounds are not ... favored. See Hays, Adm'r v. Westbrook, 96 Ga ... 219, 22 S.E. 893; Reese v. State, 18 Ga.App. 289, 89 ... S.E. 303; Minyard v. State, 18 Ga.App. 312, 89 S.E ... ...
-
Brannon v. State
... ... Equally well established and as stemming from the same ... elemental principle, is the proposition that such motions are ... not favored. Hays v. Westbrook, 96 Ga. 219, 22 S.E ... 893; Colwell v. State, 46 Ga.App. 55, 166 S.E. 445; ... Davis v. State, 41 Ga.App. 366, 153 S.E. 203. And ... ...
-
O'neil& v. State
...before the trial. See, also, Sellars v. State, 99 Ga. 212, 25 S. E. 178. Counsel for plaintiff in error cites the case of Hays v. Westbrook, 96 Ga. 219, 22 S. E. 893, as authority that the court should have granted the new trial on the ground of the newly-discovered evidence of the two witn......