Carlson v. Carlson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carlson v. Carlson

270 S.E.2d 65, 154 Ga. App. 839, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2410

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 11, 1980

Docket59500

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 270 S.E.2d 65 (Carlson v. Carlson) 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

Carlson v. Carlson, 270 S.E.2d 65, 154 Ga. App. 839, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2410 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

This is an action for an equitable accounting and assumpsit for money had and received as well as the setting aside of certain deeds to property held by appellant. Appellant brings this appeal from the denial of her motion for a new trial and an adverse jury verdict of $58,000. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the verdict is “unreasonably and greatly in excess of the evidence.” We affirm.

Appellant contends that only $31,400 of the ward’s money was proven to have been received by her. However, there was evidence to the effect that most, if not all, of the money which flowed to the ward during the period of time in question was given by him to appellant and that this amounted to more than $60,000. “Where the judgment of the trial court awards damages within the range of the conflicting testimony, this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court on the ground the judgment was excessive. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 107 Ga. App. 660 (3) (131 SE2d 122).” Campo Const. v. Stembridge, 138 Ga. App. 555, 557 (226 SE2d 797) (1976). See Carter v. Lipsey, 70 Ga. 417 (4) (1883). As there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, appellant’s enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

This is an action for an equitable accounting and assumpsit for money had and received as well as the setting aside of certain deeds to property held by appellant. Appellant brings this appeal from the denial of her motion for a new trial and an adverse jury verdict of $58,000. The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether the verdict is “unreasonably and greatly in excess of the evidence.” We affirm.

Appellant contends that only $31,400 of the ward’s money was proven to have been received by her. However, there was evidence to the effect that most, if not all, of the money which flowed to the ward during the period of time in question was given by him to appellant and that this amounted to more than $60,000. “Where the judgment of the trial court awards damages within the range of the conflicting testimony, this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court on the ground the judgment was excessive. Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 107 Ga. App. 660 (3) (131 SE2d 122).” Campo Const. v. Stembridge, 138 Ga. App. 555, 557 (226 SE2d 797) (1976). See Carter v. Lipsey, 70 Ga. 417 (4) (1883). As there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict, appellant’s enumerations of error are without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 S.E.2d 65, 154 Ga. App. 839, 1980 Ga. App. LEXIS 2410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-carlson-gactapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack