Ray v. Woods
| Decision Date | 12 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36132,No. 1,36132,1 |
| Citation | 93 Ga.App. 763,92 S.E.2d 820 |
| Parties | W. E. RAY v. Nay WOODS |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1, 2. A motion for new trial goes only to the verdict, and reaches only such errors of law and fact as contributed to the rendition of the verdict.
3. The evidence adduced on the trial of the case supported the verdict of the jury, and the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion for new trial.
W. E. Ray brought an action in the Superior Court of Pickens County against Nay Woods to recover for damage occasioned to his automobile as the result of a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and the defendant's automobile. The defendant filed a cross-action in which he sought to recover for damage to his automobile, as well as for physical injuries resulting from the same collision, including past, present, and future pain and suffering, and past, present, and future loss of earnings. Neither the plaintiff in the original action nor his counsel appeared for the trial of the case, and the same proceeded to trial on the defendant's cross-action. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant on the cross-action, which verdict was made the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds, which he later amended so as to include several special grounds. When the amended motion for new trial came on for a hearing, it was denied, and to this judgment the plaintiff excepts.
E. B. Judge, J. C. Bostian, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
No appearances for defendant in error.
1. The plaintiff, in his first special ground of the amended motion for new trial, contends that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss his petition before proceeding to trial on the defendant's cross-action in accordance with Rule 41 of the Superior Court Rules of Procedure Code Ann. Pocket Part, § 24-3341.
This court and the Supreme Court have consistently held that an exception to a ruling on a motion to dismiss is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial. Taylor v. Globe Refinery Co., 127 Ga. 138, 56 S.E. 292; Gillis v. Powell, 129 Ga. 403, 58 S.E. 1051; Skinner v. Arthur & Westbrook, 14 Ga.App. 302, 80 S.E. 699; Mayeske v. Owen, 92 Ga.App. 121, 88 S.E.2d 204. And as was said by the Supreme Court in the case of Herz v. H. B. Claflin Co., 101 Ga. 615(6), 29 S.E. 33, 'A motion for a new trial goes only to the verdict and reaches only such errors of law and fact as contributed to the rendition of the verdict; and therefore errors committed by the court in the rendition of a decree or judgment cannot be reached by a motion for a new trial.'
Although this ground of the motion for new trial does not complain of a ruling on a motion to dismiss, it does complain of a failure of the trial judge to dismiss the plaintiff's petition, and does not complain of any error of law or fact that contributed to the verdict. Therefore this is not a proper ground of a motion for new trial.
2. In the fifth ground of the amendment to the motion for new trial, the plaintiff urges that the trial was held without due notice to the plaintiff or his attorney and was held without the plaintiff or his attorney being present. This ground, like the special ground of the motion for new trial discussed in the previous division of this opinion, fails to set forth any error of law or fact that contributed to the verdict rendered. Therefore this special ground of the motion for new trial can not be considered.
3. The other special grounds are but amplifications of the general grounds, and will be considered along with them.
The defendant testified on the trial that the plaintiff, while driving his automobile at a high rate of speed in the same direction as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dukes v. State, 40581
...goes only to the verdict and reaches only such errors of law and fact as contributed to the rendition of the verdict.' Ray v. Woods, 93 Ga.App. 763(1), 92 S.E.2d 820. Jurisdiction of the court is not affected by the fact that the detention is illegal. French v. State, 99 Ga.App. 149(5), 107......
-
Lanier v. O'Bear, 38087
...in the future. (Had he testified as to future pain and suffering such testimony would have been subject to objection, Ray v. Wood, 93 Ga.App. 763, 92 S.E.2d 820.) While Dr. Davidson testified that the scars, as a result of the injuries to the plaintiff's legs, would touch in ordinary activi......
-
Patillo v. Thompson, 39558
...errors of law and fact as contributed to the rendition of the verdict. Herz v. Claflin Co., 101 Ga. 615(5), 29 S.E. 33; Ray v. Wood, 93 Ga.App. 763(1), 92 S.E.2d 820. In an ordinary negligence case, not only is a liability insurance policy of a litigant not admissible in evidence, but discl......
- Bleckley v. Langston