Buchanan v. James

Supreme Court of Georgia

Buchanan v. James

68 S.E. 72, 134 Ga. 475, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 232

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 11, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 72 (Buchanan v. James) 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

Buchanan v. James, 68 S.E. 72, 134 Ga. 475, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 232 (Ga. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. A motion for a new trial is a means of seeking to have a retrial or re-examination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision hy a jury, report of "a referee, or a decision hy the court thereon. It is an application for a retrial of' the facts of the case. 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2708; Castellano v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97 (31 S. E. 801); 5 Words & Phrases, 4788 et seq.

2. The grant of a nonsuit terminates the case without á final passing upon the issues of fact hy a jury, referee, or judge. It is a ruling hy the judge, that the plaintiff, under the evidence presented by him, has not. [476]*476made out such a ease as to entitle liim to have the jury pass upon the issrtes of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a determination of the issues of fact. Under the practice in this State, it does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and seeking to ’ make out his case by the introduction of evidence on the trial thereof.

May 11, 1910.

Motion. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court.

July 23, 1909. Pottle & Glessner and Park & Collins, for plaintiff. R. H. Sheffield and Pope & Bennet, for defendants.

3. It follows from the distinction which will appear from the two preceding headnotes that where the presiding judge grants a nonsuit, and thus terminates the case before a verdict or decision upon the issues of fact, a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of.testing the correctness of such ruling. See Hudson v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 85 Ga. 203 (11 S. E. 605); Central Railroad Co. v. Folds, 86 Ga. 42 (12 S. E. 216); Swain v. Macon Fire Ins. Co., 102 Ga. 96, 103 (29 S. E. 147); Southern Railway Co. v. James, 114 Ga. 198 (39 S. E. 849); City of Atlanta v. Miller, 125 Ga. 495 (54 S. E. 538).

3. There was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fish, C. J.

1. A motion for a new trial is a means of seeking to have a retrial or re-examination, in the same court, of an issue of fact, or of some part or portion thereof, after decision hy a jury, report of "a referee, or a decision hy the court thereon. It is an application for a retrial of' the facts of the case. 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2708; Castellano v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97 (31 S. E. 801); 5 Words & Phrases, 4788 et seq.

2. The grant of a nonsuit terminates the case without á final passing upon the issues of fact hy a jury, referee, or judge. It is a ruling hy the judge, that the plaintiff, under the evidence presented by him, has not. [476]*476made out such a ease as to entitle liim to have the jury pass upon the issrtes of fact. It is a ruling of law by the judge, not a determination of the issues of fact. Under the practice in this State, it does not preclude the plaintiff from bringing another action, and seeking to ’ make out his case by the introduction of evidence on the trial thereof.

May 11, 1910.

Motion. Before Judge Worrill. Early superior court.

July 23, 1909. Pottle & Glessner and Park & Collins, for plaintiff. R. H. Sheffield and Pope & Bennet, for defendants.

3. It follows from the distinction which will appear from the two preceding headnotes that where the presiding judge grants a nonsuit, and thus terminates the case before a verdict or decision upon the issues of fact, a motion for a new trial is not the proper mode of.testing the correctness of such ruling. See Hudson v. Georgia Pacific Ry. Co., 85 Ga. 203 (11 S. E. 605); Central Railroad Co. v. Folds, 86 Ga. 42 (12 S. E. 216); Swain v. Macon Fire Ins. Co., 102 Ga. 96, 103 (29 S. E. 147); Southern Railway Co. v. James, 114 Ga. 198 (39 S. E. 849); City of Atlanta v. Miller, 125 Ga. 495 (54 S. E. 538).

3. There was no error in dismissing the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 72, 134 Ga. 475, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-james-ga-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack