Lawson v. Lawson, 27943.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1940
• Docket Number: No. 27943.,27943.
• Citation: 7 S.E.2d 603
• Parties: LAWSON et al. v. LAWSON et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

7 S.E.2d 603

LAWSON et al.

v.LAWSON et al.

No. 27943.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Feb. 29, 1940.

Syllabus by the court.

1. The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed unless the verdict as found by the jury or as directed by the judge was as a matter of law demanded.

2. Where the damages sued for are not liquidated, but are speculative only, and rest in the discretion of the Jury under the evidence, notwithstanding the evidence may demand a finding that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in some amount, a verdict in the amount found by the jury is not as a matter of law demanded.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Mattie O. Lawson and another against Mrs. H. IT. Lawson and others for trespass on cemetery lot of plaintiffs and the disinterment of the body of their son therefrom. To review the judgment, plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

P. W. Walton, of Monticello, and R. C. Whitman, of Eatonton, for plaintiffs in error.

Evans & Milam, F. Lee Evans, and Rupert L. Murphy, all of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

STEPHENS, Presiding Judge.

Mrs. Mattie O. Lawson and W. B. Lawson brought suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County against Mrs. H. H. Lawson, a resident of Fulton County, and against Mrs. Josh Leach, Josh Leach, and Harry L. White, residents of Rockdale County, seeking to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the malicious, wilful and wanton trespass of the defend-ants upon a certain cemetery lot of the plaintiffs, and the disinterment of the body of their son therefrom. The defendants denied liability. Mrs. H. H. Lawson admitted the disinterment, and claimed that she had been the wife of the deceased, and as such was entitled to his remains. White, who was an undertaker, admitted the disinterment by him of the body, and alleged that what he did was on instruction of Mrs. H. H. Lawson as the widow of the deceased. On the trial the court instructed the jury that it appeared from the undisputed evidence that plaintiffs were not entitled to recover against Josh Leach and Mrs. Josh Leach, but that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover at least nominal damages against Mrs. H. H. Lawson and Harry L. White. The jury returned a verdict against Mrs. H. H. Lawson for $1, and against White for $200. White moved for a new trial, which was granted. To this judgment the plaintiffs excepted.

The only question presented is whether the court erred in granting a new trial to White. In determining this question it is immaterial as to what are the respective rights of the plaintiffs and the defendant Mrs. H. H. Lawson as to the body of the deceased. If Mrs. H. H. Lawson was not the widow of the deceased and therefore had no right to disinter his body, of...