Freeman v. Franklin

170 S.E. 321, 47 Ga. App. 265, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 364
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 27, 1933
Docket22741
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 170 S.E. 321 (Freeman v. Franklin) 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
Freeman v. Franklin, 170 S.E. 321, 47 Ga. App. 265, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 364 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions, being upon the sole ground of an insufficient assignment of error as it appears only in the petition for certiorari, is manifestly without merit, and is therefore denied.

2. The first grant of a new trial by sustaining a certiorari, where the verdict was not demanded by the evidence, will not be disturbed, though based on a special ground of the motion, regardless of the merit of such ground. Atlantic & Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Cobb, 125 Ga. 121 (53 S. E. 591); Smith v. Hightower, 123 Ga. 110 (51 S. E. 28); Elliott v. McCalla, 123 Ga. 26 (50 S. E. 960) ; Sunbeam Heating Co. v. Mason, 42 Ga. App. 265 (155 S. E. 769) ; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Ozburn, 38 Ga. App. 276 (143 S. E. 623). The denial by the superior court of the certiorari and its remand of the case to the municipal court for a retrial, after the first grant of a new trial by the appellate division of the municipal court, being the equivalent of a first grant of a new trial by sustaining a certiorari, and the evidence being conflicting, under the general grounds of the motion for new trial the judgment of the superior court will be affirmed.

3. The special ground of the motion for a new trial, based on the alleged incompleteness of the charge of the court relative to one of the phases of the instant claim case, does not raise such a question as will likely arise upon the second trial of the case, and therefore need not be considered or determined.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Sutton, JJ., concur. C. L. Padgett, Louis E. Foster, George G. Finch, for plaintiff. J. V. Poole, for defendants.

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

Related

Peacock v. American Plant Co.
175 S.E. 262 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Hurt v. Stewart
174 S.E. 924 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Greenwood v. McGee
173 S.E. 468 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Tyler v. National Life & Accident Insurance
172 S.E. 747 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
170 S.E. 321, 47 Ga. App. 265, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-franklin-gactapp-1933.