Jordan v. Dooly
| Decision Date | 08 October 1907 |
| Citation | 58 S.E. 879,129 Ga. 392 |
| Parties | JORDAN. v. DOOLY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
The rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed, except where the verdict is demanded by the evidence, is applicable to a case where two successive verdicts have been rendered, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, and where in each instance a new trial was granted.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, §§ 38, 63.]
The evidence was conflicting, and the court did not abuse his discretion in vacating the verdict and granting a new trial.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, New Trial, §§ 144, 145; vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 3871.]
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Banks County; C. H. Brand, Judge.
Action by G. W. Dooly against R. H. Jordan. Verdict for defendant. From an order granting a new trial, he brings error. Affirmed.
C. R. Faulkner and Fletcher M. Johnson, for plaintiff in error.
J. C. Edwards, J. J. Bowden, and A. J. Griffin, for defendant in error.
The case was complaint for land, and the paramount issue was that two of the plaintiff's muniments of title were void for usury. The evidence upon this point was conflicting. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the court granted a new trial. The bill of exceptions complains of the judgment granting a new trial.
It appears from: the record that the case was tried at a previous term of the court, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, which was set aside on motion for new trial. Counsel for plaintiff in error insist that there is no merit in the various grounds of the motion, and that, as this is the second verdict which has been rendered in the case, the court abused his discretion in ordering a new trial. It is true that this is the second verdict, but it is not the second concurrent verdict The reason of the rule that a second concurrent verdict (where no error of law has been committed) should not be disturbed except in cases where the verdict is strongly and decidedly against the weight of the evi-dence, and manifestly wrong, is that the Jury are the judges of the facts, and, when this arbiter has twice spoken, their conclusions should not be lightly set aside. Dethrage v. Rome, 125 Ga. 806, 54 S. E. 654, and cases cited. But where the verdict is for one litigant, and that is set aside, and the next...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. J.S.H. Co.
... ... other for the defendant, and where in each instance a new ... trial was granted. Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392(1), ... 58 S.E. 879; Butler v. Sansome, 138 Ga. 767(1), 76 ... S.E. 54; Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co., ... ...
-
Jones v. J. S. H. Co. At Al
...been rendered, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, and where in each instance a new trial was granted. Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392(1), 58 S.E. 879; Butler v. San-some, 138 Ga. 767(1), 76 S.E. 54; Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co., 19 Ga.App. 626, 91 S.E. 942......
-
Butder v. Sansone
...been rendered, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, and where in each instance a new trial was granted. Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392, 58 S. E. 879. [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 3860-3865; Dec. Dig. § 977.*] 2. Appeal and Error (§ 9772-*) ......
-
Morris v. Baxley Hardware Co, (No. 7130.)
...judges of the facts, and. when" these arbiters have "twice spoken, their conclusion should not be lightly set aside." Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392, 58 S. E. 879, 880; Mays v. Mays, 33 Ga. App. 335, 126 S. E. 299. The second verdict in favor of the plaintiff not being demanded under the evid......