Carter v. Mansor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. Mansor

33 S.E.2d 718, 72 Ga. App. 376, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 582

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1945

Docket30798.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 S.E.2d 718 (Carter v. Mansor) 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

Carter v. Mansor, 33 S.E.2d 718, 72 Ga. App. 376, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

1. Where, in an action for purchase-money attachment based on an unconditional written contract, after admitting a prima facie case, the defendant introduced evidence and rested, and the plaintiff by motion in the nature of a -general demurrer moved to strike the answer as setting forth no legal defense to the action, and the motion was sustained without valid exception, this ruling became the law of the case, and the trial court was without authority to grant a new trial on the ground that the ruling was erroneous, the striking of the answer not being in any event the subject-matter of a motion for a new trial. Sims v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 S. E. 573) ; Little V. Tow, 69 Ga. App. 335 (25 S. E. 2d, 232) ; Roles v. Edwards, 49 Ga. App. 527 (176 S. E. 106).

2. Upon the striking of the answer, the case was in default, and upon the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court was without authority to grant a new trial, as the verdict was demanded. Lunsford V. Howe, 71 Ga. App. 106 (30 S. E. 2d, 207). Accordingly it was error to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

1. Where, in an action for purchase-money attachment based on an unconditional written contract, after admitting a prima facie case, the defendant introduced evidence and rested, and the plaintiff by motion in the nature of a -general demurrer moved to strike the answer as setting forth no legal defense to the action, and the motion was sustained without valid exception, this ruling became the law of the case, and the trial court was without authority to grant a new trial on the ground that the ruling was erroneous, the striking of the answer not being in any event the subject-matter of a motion for a new trial. Sims v. Georgia Ry. & Electric Co., 123 Ga. 643 (51 S. E. 573) ; Little V. Tow, 69 Ga. App. 335 (25 S. E. 2d, 232) ; Roles v. Edwards, 49 Ga. App. 527 (176 S. E. 106).

2. Upon the striking of the answer, the case was in default, and upon the direction of a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court was without authority to grant a new trial, as the verdict was demanded. Lunsford V. Howe, 71 Ga. App. 106 (30 S. E. 2d, 207). Accordingly it was error to grant a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Sutton, P. J., and Parker, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 S.E.2d 718, 72 Ga. App. 376, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-mansor-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack