Baker v. McGarr

Supreme Court of Georgia

Baker v. McGarr

1 S.E.2d 403, 187 Ga. 533, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 420

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1939

DocketNo. 12619

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 403 (Baker v. McGarr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. McGarr, 1 S.E.2d 403, 187 Ga. 533, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 420 (Ga. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Justice.

Where it does not appear that the verdict was demanded under the law and the evidence, the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed. Code, § 6-1608; Griffith v. Sellers, 170 Ga. 577 (153 S. E. 359) ; Murray v. Davidson, 174 Ga. 213 (2) (162 S. E. 526) ; Smith v. Perry, 176 Ga. 775 (168 S. E. 770) ; Douglas v. Baxley State Bank, 183 Ga. 132 (187 S. E. 632); Brenner v. Wright, 183 Ga. 510 (188 S. E. 694); Powell v. Palmer, 186 Ga. 747 (198 S. E. 753). In the instant case a verdict was rendered for unliquidated damages, and it can not be said as a matter of law that the verdict for the exact amount was demanded by the evidence. “The first grant of a new trial will not be reversed unless it plainly and manifestly appears that there was an abuse of discretion by the court below, and this court will not closely scrutinize the facts in evidence or endeavor to balance with great exactness the testimony on both sides with a view to detecting an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion in favor of granting new trials should be encouraged.” Georgia Midland & Gulf R. Co. v. Curry, 90 Ga. 250 (15 S. E. 751).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Watts Powell and B. P. Strozier, for plaintiff. J. M. Forrester, Benjamin Zeesman, and G. L. Harris, for defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Duckworth, Justice.

Where it does not appear that the verdict was demanded under the law and the evidence, the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed. Code, § 6-1608; Griffith v. Sellers, 170 Ga. 577 (153 S. E. 359) ; Murray v. Davidson, 174 Ga. 213 (2) (162 S. E. 526) ; Smith v. Perry, 176 Ga. 775 (168 S. E. 770) ; Douglas v. Baxley State Bank, 183 Ga. 132 (187 S. E. 632); Brenner v. Wright, 183 Ga. 510 (188 S. E. 694); Powell v. Palmer, 186 Ga. 747 (198 S. E. 753). In the instant case a verdict was rendered for unliquidated damages, and it can not be said as a matter of law that the verdict for the exact amount was demanded by the evidence. “The first grant of a new trial will not be reversed unless it plainly and manifestly appears that there was an abuse of discretion by the court below, and this court will not closely scrutinize the facts in evidence or endeavor to balance with great exactness the testimony on both sides with a view to detecting an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion in favor of granting new trials should be encouraged.” Georgia Midland & Gulf R. Co. v. Curry, 90 Ga. 250 (15 S. E. 751).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Watts Powell and B. P. Strozier, for plaintiff. J. M. Forrester, Benjamin Zeesman, and G. L. Harris, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 403, 187 Ga. 533, 1939 Ga. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-mcgarr-ga-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack