Bowman v. Bowman

Supreme Court of Georgia

Bowman v. Bowman

45 S.E.2d 415, 203 Ga. 206, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 569

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 1, 1947

Docket16026.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 45 S.E.2d 415 (Bowman v. Bowman) 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

Bowman v. Bowman, 45 S.E.2d 415, 203 Ga. 206, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 569 (Ga. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

1. Where a bill of exceptions contains recitals indicating that a brief of the evidence had not been unqualifiedly approved, and that the brief in fact did not correctly show the evidence, but the duly certified transcript of the record shows that it was unconditionally approved and ordered filed as a part of the record, the latter will be accepted in preference to what appears in the certificate of the judge. Adams v. Holland, 101 Ga. 43 (28 S. E. 434); Sweatman v. Wall, 111 Ga. 871 (36 S. E. 954); Southern Railway Co. v. Flemister, 120 Ga. 524 (48 S. E. 160); Crews v. Ransom, 183 Ga. 179 (188 S. E. 1); Saliba v. Saliba, 201 Ga. 681 (40 S. E. 2d, 732).

2. “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 not *207 withstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Code, § 6-1608. Under the pleadings and the evidence in the instant case, the verdict for the plaintiff in error was not demanded, and the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial.

No. 16026. December 1, 1947. Rehearing denied December 16, 1947. Poole, Pearce & Hall, and Margaret Hills, for plaintiff in error. James L. Moore & Will G. Moore, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Candler, Justice.

1. Where a bill of exceptions contains recitals indicating that a brief of the evidence had not been unqualifiedly approved, and that the brief in fact did not correctly show the evidence, but the duly certified transcript of the record shows that it was unconditionally approved and ordered filed as a part of the record, the latter will be accepted in preference to what appears in the certificate of the judge. Adams v. Holland, 101 Ga. 43 (28 S. E. 434); Sweatman v. Wall, 111 Ga. 871 (36 S. E. 954); Southern Railway Co. v. Flemister, 120 Ga. 524 (48 S. E. 160); Crews v. Ransom, 183 Ga. 179 (188 S. E. 1); Saliba v. Saliba, 201 Ga. 681 (40 S. E. 2d, 732).

2. “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 not *207 withstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Code, § 6-1608. Under the pleadings and the evidence in the instant case, the verdict for the plaintiff in error was not demanded, and the judge did not abuse his discretion in granting a new trial.

No. 16026. December 1, 1947. Rehearing denied December 16, 1947. Poole, Pearce & Hall, and Margaret Hills, for plaintiff in error. James L. Moore & Will G. Moore, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.E.2d 415, 203 Ga. 206, 1947 Ga. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-bowman-ga-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack