Driskell v. Hardin

146 S.E. 349, 39 Ga. App. 208, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 253
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 22, 1929·No. 18991·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

On exceptions to tlie first grant of a new trial,-the only-question that the appellate court will determine is whether the verdict was demanded by the evidence, and this, under the rulings, is true even though the trial judge may have specifically and in terms based his grant of a new trial on some other ground of the motion. Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368, 370 (64 S. E. 262); Gresham v. Lee, 28 Ga. App. 576 (112 S. E. 524); Rowe Brothers Motor Express Co. v. Twiggs County, 152 Ga. 548 (110 S. E. 303). Accordingly, since it is conceded by the plaintiffs in error that the verdict in their favor was not demanded, the judgment of the superior court granting a new trial will be affirmed, without adjudicating whether a contrary verdict was demanded. Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Park & Strozier, J. M. Fletcher, for plaintiffs. Ryals, Anderson & Anderson, A. M. Zellner, for defendants.

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

Driskell v. Hardin, 146 S.E. 349, 39 Ga. App. 208, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 253 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

146 S.E. 349 (Driskell v. Hardin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Throgmorton v. Trammell
83 S.E.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Belk v. Cook
179 S.E. 870 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
National Life & Accident Insurance v. Cantrell
175 S.E. 543 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Hartsfield Co. v. Ray
157 S.E. 111 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)