Western Assur. Co. Of Toronto v. Way

• Decision Date: 10 August 1896
• Citation: 98 Ga. 746,27 S.E. 167
• Parties: WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, et al. v. WAY. WAY v. WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

27 S.E. 167

98 Ga. 746

WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, et al.

v.WAY.

WAY

v.WESTERN ASSUR. CO. OF TORONTO, CANADA, et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 10, 1896.

Actions — Consolidation — Subsequent Procedure—Appeal—Bill of execeptions.

1. Where two actions in favor of the same plaintiffs against different defendants were pending in the same court, and the issues involved in them and the evidence relating thereto were so nearly identical as to render it practicable to try both cases together before the same jury, and at the same time, it was competent for the court, with the consent of counsel, to pass an order that these cases be consolidated to the extent of trying them together, and to provide in such order for the rendition of a separate verdict in each case.

2. Such a trial having been had, and the jury having rendered in the plaintiff's favor a sepa-rate verdict against each of the defendants, it was the proper practice for each of them to file a separate motion for a new trial.

3. When this was done, and the trial court thereupon passed an order consolidating the two motions, and then rendered a single judgment overruling both, this judgment was, in effect, the equivalent of two separate judgments overruling respectively the two motions.

4. While in such case both of the defendants undoubtedly had the several right of exception, thus consolidating and passing upon the two separate motions did not authorize the defendants to unite in one bill of exceptions, though they undertook therein to except "jointly and severally" to the judgment rendered. There is no law authorizing such a practice, nor conferring jurisdiction upon this court to entertain such a writ of error. See Bones v. Bank, 67 Ga. 339; Pupke v. Meador, 72 Ga. 230.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Savannah; A. H. MacDonell, Judge.

Separate actions by Prances M. Way against the Western Assurance Company of Toronto, Canada, and against the British America Insurance Company of Toronto, Canada, were consolidated, and on separate verdicts for plaintiff defendants moved separately for new trials. The motions were consolidated, and from a judgment overruling them defendants bring error. Writ dismissed.

R. R. Richards, for plaintiffs in error.

Nicholson & McKethan, for defendant in error.

SIMMONS, C. J. Mrs. Way, suing for herself and for the use of Fisher, brought an action in the city court of Savannah against the Western Assurance Company of Toronto, and another action in the same court against the British America Insurance Company of Toronto. By consent of counsel in both cases the court passed an order in which, after reciting that the issues involved and the evidence relating thereto were so nearly identical that it was practicable for them to be tried together before the same jury and at the same time, it was directed that the cases be consolidated to the extent of trying them together, but that separate verdicts be rendered therein. The trial resulted in the plaintiff's favor, and a separate verdict was rendered against each of the defendants. Each defendant made a separate motion for a new trial, and the court, by consent of counsel, passed an order consolidating the motions, and rendered a single judgment overruling them. Both defendants then united in one bill of exceptions, in which they excepted "jointly and severally" to the judgment, and it is upon this bill of exceptions that the matter comes before us.

If the issues involved in both cases, and the evidence relating thereto, were so nearly identical as to render it practicable to try them together, it was competent for the court, with the consent of counsel,...