Hunter v. Wakefield

• Decision Date: 02 December 1895
• Citation: 97 Ga. 543,25 S.E. 347
• Parties: HUNTER. v. WAKEFIELD et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

97 Ga. 543

25 S.E. 347

HUNTER.

v.WAKEFIELD et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 2, 1895.

Libel — Verdict against Joint Defendants — Apportionment of Liability—Appeal— Parties—New Trial.

1. If, in an action for a libel brought against several defendants, the plaintiff recovers at all, the damages awarded must be for the same amount as to all of the defendants found liable. In a case of this kind, different sums cannot be assessed against different defendants.

2. Where, in such a case, there is a verdict for the plaintiff against some of the defendants for a given amount, and in favor of the other defendants, there can be no new trial between the plaintiff and the latter alone; but, if a new trial is granted at all, it must be granted as to all the parties. Accordingly, all the defendants below are necessary parties to a bill of exceptions sued out by the plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining a new trial; and, if some of these defendants are not made such parties, the writ of error must be dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court)

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. Van Epps, Judge.

Action by James K. Hunter against Henry D. Wakefield and others. There was a judgment for certain defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Dismissed.

Goodwin & Westmoreland, for plaintiff in error.

M. J. Clarke, for defendants in error.

LUMPKIN, J. An action for a libel was brought by Hunter against Hagler & Co. (a firm composed of H. A. Hagler and Mattie Hagler), Henry D. Wakefield, and the Atlanta Newspaper Union (a corporation). Under the charge of the court, a verdict was rendered against Hagler & Co., of which they did not complain. The court directed a verdict in favor of the other defendants, and to this the plaintiff excepted. Hagler & Co. were neither made parties to nor served with the bill of exceptions. Upon the call of the case in this court, a motion was made to dismiss the writ of error, on the ground that H. A. Hagler and Mattie Hagler were necessary parties to the bill of exceptions, but had not In fact been made parties, nor served. In support of this motion, it was urged that the only relief possible under the bill of exceptions would be the granting of a new trial to the plaintiff in error as against Wakefield and the Atlanta Newspaper Union, and that the court could not grant this relief, because it could not disturb the verdict as to Hagler & Co., they not having moved for a new trial, and not being now before the court This contention was based upon the proposition that it would be...