Haverty Furniture Co. v. Hunter

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Haverty Furniture Co. v. Hunter

100 S.E. 732, 24 Ga. App. 301, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 586

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 20, 1919

Docket10470

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 732 (Haverty Furniture Co. v. Hunter) 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

Haverty Furniture Co. v. Hunter, 100 S.E. 732, 24 Ga. App. 301, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

■ Jenkins, P. J.

Even under the ruling in the ease of Knight v Savannah Electric Co., 20 Ga. App. 314 (93 S. E. 17), as to which a question is now pending for determination by the Supreme Court in another case certified to that court by this court, it can not be said as a matter of law that in this case a judgment for the defendant was absolutely demanded. It therefore follows that the defendant can not; complain because the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, has seen proper to grant the motion of the plaintiff for the first grant of a new trial, thereby setting aside the judgment in the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover at all, the evidence does not. demand that the verdict be limited to the amount named in the judgment. See Parks v. Stevens, 21 Ga. App. 180 (94 S. E. 60), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

■ Jenkins, P. J.

Even under the ruling in the ease of Knight v Savannah Electric Co., 20 Ga. App. 314 (93 S. E. 17), as to which a question is now pending for determination by the Supreme Court in another case certified to that court by this court, it can not be said as a matter of law that in this case a judgment for the defendant was absolutely demanded. It therefore follows that the defendant can not; complain because the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, has seen proper to grant the motion of the plaintiff for the first grant of a new trial, thereby setting aside the judgment in the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery. If the plaintiff is entitled to recover at all, the evidence does not. demand that the verdict be limited to the amount named in the judgment. See Parks v. Stevens, 21 Ga. App. 180 (94 S. E. 60), and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 732, 24 Ga. App. 301, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haverty-furniture-co-v-hunter-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack