Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co.

91 S.E. 942, 19 Ga. App. 626, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 272
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided March 23, 1917·No. 7869·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Beoodworth, J.

“The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Court of Appeals unless the plaintiff in error shows that the law and the facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge. Civil Code (1910), § 6204; Hughes v. Atlanta Steel Co., 9 Ga. App. 510 (71 S. E. 934), and cases cited. This rule applies though two new trials have been granted, one to the plaintiff and the other to the defendant. Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392 (58 S. E. 879). In this case the bill of exceptions and the record fail to show that the verdict rendered was demanded by the law and the evidence, and the judgment granting a new trial must be affirmed.” Owens v. Cocroft, 11 Ga. App. 235 (74 S. E. 1098); Butler v. Sansone, 138 Ga. 767 (76 S. E. 54).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Jenkins, J., concur. Trover; from city court of Jefferson—Judge Mehaffey. August ’ 23, 1916. Ray & Ray, for plaintiff. L. C. Russell, for defendant.

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

Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co., 91 S.E. 942, 19 Ga. App. 626, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 272 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

91 S.E. 942 (Elder v. Woodruff Hardware & Manufacturing Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Jones v. J. S. H. Company
40 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)