Bank of Oglethorpe v. Hicks

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bank of Oglethorpe v. Hicks

82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 27

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 1, 1914

Docket5441

StatusPublished

This text of 82 S.E. 635 (Bank of Oglethorpe v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Oglethorpe v. Hicks, 82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 27 (Ga. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. Except as ruled hereinafter, the special grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial require no discussion, and none of the assignments of error require the grant of a new trial.

2. Where there is a money verdict for the plaintiff in trover, a judgment granting a new trial only in case the prevailing party refuses to reduce the verdict in his favor, so that it shall conform to the evidence, is not necessarily such error as to demand a reversal, although a recovery in trover is, in a technical sense, an award of damages. In the instant case some of the articles enumerated in the petition were not shown to have been in the possession of the defendant, and for that reason a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the value of these chattels was unauthorized. The defendant, however, can not complain that his liability was reduced by the voluntary act of the plaintiff, since the evidence fully supported a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the remainder of the articles involved in the action, and since it is axiomatic that the error which requires the grant of a new trial is an error accompanied or followed by injury to the complaining party.

Judgment affirmed.

Roam, J., absent.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. Except as ruled hereinafter, the special grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial require no discussion, and none of the assignments of error require the grant of a new trial.

2. Where there is a money verdict for the plaintiff in trover, a judgment granting a new trial only in case the prevailing party refuses to reduce the verdict in his favor, so that it shall conform to the evidence, is not necessarily such error as to demand a reversal, although a recovery in trover is, in a technical sense, an award of damages. In the instant case some of the articles enumerated in the petition were not shown to have been in the possession of the defendant, and for that reason a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the value of these chattels was unauthorized. The defendant, however, can not complain that his liability was reduced by the voluntary act of the plaintiff, since the evidence fully supported a finding in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the remainder of the articles involved in the action, and since it is axiomatic that the error which requires the grant of a new trial is an error accompanied or followed by injury to the complaining party.

Judgment affirmed.

Roam, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E. 635, 15 Ga. App. 92, 1914 Ga. App. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-oglethorpe-v-hicks-gactapp-1914.