Kelly Ford, Inc. v. Paracsi
| Citation | 141 Ga.App. 626,234 S.E.2d 170 |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53458,No. 2,53458,2 |
| Parties | KELLY FORD, INC. v. A. J. PARACSI |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rose & Stern, George S. Stern, James W. Penland, Atlanta, for appellant.
Westmoreland, Hall, McGee & Warner, Edward E. Bates, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Plaintiff was employed as general manager of defendant automobile agency under an agreement whereby he was to receive a monthly salary and a bonus based upon profits "before income tax and after any necessary year end adjustments." A material issue was whether the bonus was to be calculated on the basis of a financial statement referred to as the "twelfth month statement" or one called the "thirteenth month statement." The former showed a larger profit and would have indicated a substantial bonus for plaintiff. The latter, which carried year end inventory writedowns, resulted in greatly reduced profits and totally eliminated the bonus for plaintiff. Lengthy and conflicting evidence was introduced as to how these writedowns were actually taken. The complaint was filed in two counts. The trial court directed a verdict as to count two based upon fraud but overruled defendant's motion for directed verdict on count one based upon breach of contract. Verdict for the plaintiff and judgment entered accordingly. Defendant's motion for new trial or in the alternative a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied. Defendant appeals on that ground and also enumerates error on the denial of its motion for directed verdict.
1. In passing upon a motion for new trial after verdict, the view of the evidence which is most favorable to upholding the verdict must be taken. This court will not disturb the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial if there is any evidence to support the verdict, however slight. Peek v. Peek, 207 Ga. 72, 73, 60 S.E.2d 138; Middleton v. Waters, 205 Ga. 847(5), 55 S.E.2d 359. Blalock v. Staver, 132 Ga.App. 628, 629, 208 S.E.2d 634.
Although the evidence in the case was in some instances conflicting, it certainly met the criteria of the "any evidence" rule.
2. The court's refusal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doherty v. Brown
...in the case was in some instances conflicting, it certainly met the criteria of the ‘any evidence’ rule." Kelly Ford v. Paracsi , 141 Ga.App. 626, 627 (1), 234 S.E.2d 170 (1977). As explained in Division 1, because there was some evidence from which the jury could have found ordinary neglig......
-
Palmer v. Wilkins
...to be drawn from the evidence that it is proper for the judge to remove the case from jury consideration.' " Kelly Ford v. Paracsi, 141 Ga.App. 626, 628, 234 S.E.2d 170 (1977). The evidence in this case did not demand a verdict for appellant. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denyin......
-
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. McClain, 54297
...liability to the jury. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 125 Ga.App. 352, 187 S.E.2d 878 (1972); Kelly Ford, Inc. v. Paracsi, 141 Ga.App. 626(2), 234 S.E.2d 170 (1977). 2. The appellant alleges prejudicial error in the following portion of the charge given to the jury: "In other......
-
Etheridge v. Kay, 59128
...the evidence as to the material issues to justify the trial court's denial of the motion to direct a verdict. Kelly Ford, Inc. v. Paracsi, 141 Ga.App. 626, 628, 234 S.E.2d 170. Although defendant's evidence supports his contention of innocent involvement, it did not demand a directed verdic......