Griffith v. Sellers

153 S.E. 359, 170 Ga. 577, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 198
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 16, 1930·No. No. 7758·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

“This case is controlled by the well settled rule, that where it does not appear that the verdict was demanded under the law and the evidence, the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed, though based on a specified ground of the motion, .without regard to the merit of such ground. Smith v. Hightower, 123 Ga. 110 (51 S. E. 28).” Atlantic & Birmingham R. Co. v. Cobb, 125 Ga. 121 (53 S. E. 591). “This court will not closely scrutinize the facts in evidence or endeavor to balance with great exactness the testimony on both sides with a view to detecting an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion in favor of granting new trials should be encouraged.” Georgia Midland & Gulf R. Co. v. Curry, 90 Ga. 250 (15 S. E. 751). Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Griffith v. Sellers, 153 S.E. 359, 170 Ga. 577, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 198 (Ga. 1930).

153 S.E. 359 (Griffith v. Sellers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

D. H. Overmyer Warehouse Co. v. W. C. Caye & Co.
157 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Jones v. J. S. H. Company
40 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Moody v. Moody
22 S.E.2d 836 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Baker v. McGarr
1 S.E.2d 403 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Yates v. Hailey
187 S.E. 839 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)