Union Life Ins. Co. v. Aaronson, 40629
| Decision Date | 18 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 40629,40629,1 |
| Citation | 136 S.E.2d 142,109 Ga.App. 384 |
| Parties | UNION LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Perry AARONSON |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Claud R. Caldwell, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Eugene M. Kerr, Augusta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The motion in the present case denominated a motion to set aside the judgment and verdict and to grant a new trial complaining that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in a trover action for the amount of 'damages' on June 10, 1963, and alleging that neither the defendant nor his counsel learned of the verdict and judgment until September 3, 1963, when the fi. fa. was levied, is in effect a motion for a new trial. Georgia Railway and Electric Co. v. Hamer, 1 Ga.App. 673, 58 S.E. 54; Wrenn v. Allen, 180 Ga. 613, 180 S.E. 104.
2. A motion for a new trial made after the time permitted by Code § 70-301 as amended (Ga.L.1953 pp. 440, 445; 1957, pp. 224, 235) may not be entertained unless some good reason be shown why the motion was not made within the time required, which reason shall be judged of by the court. Code § 70-303.
3. An amendment, unobjected to, was filed to the motion in the present case alleging as ground 5 of the motion that several days before the sounding of the case for trial on June 10, 1963, counsel for the defendant requested counsel for the plaintiff to remove the case from the trial docket in order that they might discuss the question of settlement, and counsel for plaintiff agreed to such continuance to a later term of court, and counsel for the defendant, in reliance upon said agreement, did not notify the defendant to be and appear at said term of court and did not, himself, appear; that in the absence of defendant and his counsel, plaintiff proceeded to introduce evidence and took a verdict and judgment against the defendant on June 10, 1963, and that on at least three occasions after the verdict and judgment was rendered against the defendant, at least one of which occasions was within the 30 days succeeding the taking of the verdict and judgment, counsel for the defendant conversed with counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that counsel for the defendant had not yet had an opportunity to consult with his client as to settlement; that on none of these occasions did the counsel for the plaintiff indicate or suggest that he had already taken a verdict and judgment against the defendant; on the contrary, on each of these occasions counsel for the plaintiff expressed himself as agreeable to discussions of settlement; that defendant did not know of the verdict and judgment until a levy was made upon his property on September 3, 1963. At a hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Conley
...... and also a sufficient ground to set aside the verdict and judgment.” Id. at 516, 313 S.E.2d 773. In Union Life Insurance Co. v. Aaronson, 109 Ga.App. 384, 136 S.E.2d 142 (1964), the plaintiff told the defendant that it had requested and received a continuance from the court to allow for......
-
Vaughan v. Car Tapes, Inc.
...pleadings. Newman v. Greer, 131 Ga.App. 128, 205 S.E.2d 486; Leiter v. Arnold, 118 Ga.App. 108, 163 S.E.2d 235; Union Life Ins. Co. v. Aaronson, 109 Ga.App. 384, 136 S.E.2d 142. 4. Under Code § 70-208 the trial court is vested with a sound legal discretion in granting a new trial on grounds......
-
Jones v. Cooke
...§ 5-5-41(a) (Code Ann. § 70-303)) and also a sufficient ground to set aside the verdict and judgment. Cf. Union Life Ins. Co. v. Aaronson, 109 Ga.App. 384(3), 136 S.E.2d 142 (1964). Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant's extraordinary motion for new 3. Sin......
-
Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Village Outlet Stores, Inc.
...that he manifestly and flagrantly abused his discretion. Leiter v. Arnold, 118 Ga.App. 108, 163 S.E.2d 235; Union Life Ins. Co. v. Aaronson, 109 Ga.App. 384, 136 S.E.2d 142. Compare, stamps Tire Co., Inc. v. Powers, 104 Ga.App. 860, 123 S.E.2d In the case sub judice, appellant has failed to......