Wooten v. Mash
| Decision Date | 06 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46881,No. 3,46881,3 |
| Citation | 126 Ga.App. 86,190 S.E.2d 89 |
| Parties | Herbert W. WOOTEN v. Lilly M. NASH et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Phillip Slotin, Atlanta, for appellant.
Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, Hugh F. Newberry, Norris C. Broome, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant obtained a verdict against the defendant-appellees. The appellees' motion for a new trial on the usual general grounds and two special grounds was heard by the trial judge and the following order entered thereon: 'The defendants' motion for new trial as amended in the above styled case having come on before this court for a hearing and argument and briefs of counsel for all parties having been heard thereon and considered, it is hereby ordered that a new trial be granted in said case.' Appellant, with proper certificate for review, entered his appeal to this court. Held:
'The first grant of a new trial shall not be disturbed by the appellate court . . . unless the plaintiff in error shall show that the judge abused his discretion in granting it and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the trial court.' Code § 6-1608, Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 8 Ga.App. 288(1), 68 S.E. 1092; Stricklin v. Brotherton, 136 Ga. 456, 71 S.E. 774; Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 135 Ga. 151, 68 S.E. 1031; Rowe Brothers Motor Express Co. v. Twiggs County, 152 Ga. 548, 110 S.E. 303; Glenn v. Tankersley, 187 Ga. 129, 200 S.E. 709.
That the verdict is demanded must affirmatively appear before the first grant of a new trial by the trial judge will be disturbed. Fugazzi, Lovelace & Co. v. Tomlinson, 119 Ga. 622(2), 46 S.E. 831. The Act of 1959 (Ga.L.1959, pp. 353, 354: Code Ann. § 6-1608) Code § 6-1608 was held unconstitutional in CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden, 221 Ga. 809, 147 S.E.2d 427. It not appearing that the verdict for appellant was demanded under the evidence we, in accordance with the above decisions, find no abuse of discretion in the first grant of a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edgeman v. Thomas
...193 S.E.2d 279. The verdict for the tenant was not demanded, and the grant of the new trial will not be disturbed. Wooten v. Nash, 126 Ga.App. 86, 190 S.E.2d 89. 2. While the evidence may not have supported the amount of the verdict returned, it did authorize a verdict for the tenant in som......
- Waggoner v. Bryant, 47101
-
Henderson Const. Co. v. Farmers Mut. Exchange of Decatur, Inc.
...in the absence of a showing that the jury verdict was demanded the judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed. Wooten v. Nash, 126 Ga. App. 86, 190 S.E.2d 89; Fugazzi, Lovelace & Company v. Tomlinson, 119 Ga. 622(2), 46 3. The remaining enumerations of error were either abandoned or ......