Hawk v. Western & Atlantic Railroad

93 S.E. 40, 20 Ga. App. 395, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 908
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 27, 1917
Docket8428, 8429
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 40 (Hawk v. Western & Atlantic Railroad) 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
Hawk v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 93 S.E. 40, 20 Ga. App. 395, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 908 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

George, J.

1. The rule that the first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed except where the verdict is demanded by the evidence is applicable to the first grant of a new trial to the defendant in the action, [396]*396although a new trial had been previously granted the plaintiff in the same case. Jordan v. Dooly, 129 Ga. 392 (58 S. E. 879) ; Butler v. Sansone, 138 Ga. 767 (76 S. E. 54).

Decided June 27, 1917. Action for damages; from Whitfield superior court—Judge Fite. December 16, 1915. W. G. Martin, M. G. Tarver, for plaintiff. Tye, Peeples & Tye, Maddox, McGamy & Shumate, for defendant.

2. The order granting the new trial is general on all the grounds of the motion. One ground is based upon the result of an experiment made by certain persons, at the request of the court, after the trial of the case. The bill of exceptions, duly certified by the presiding judge, recites that the result of this test or experiment was considered by him in passing upon the motion. This ground should have been stricken from the motion. Its consideration was improper. But the fact that the presiding judge considered irrelevant, immaterial, and improper matter, in passing upon the motion, does not alter the well-established rule announced above.

3. Since the case is to be retried, this court will not pass on the sufficiency of the evidenee further than to say that it did not demand a verdict for the plaintiff.

4. The demurrers, general and special, to the plaintiff’s petition, were properly overruled.

Judgment affirmed on both main and cross-bill of exceptions.

Wade, O. J., cmd Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Jones v. J. S. H. Company
40 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Gay v. Smith
181 S.E. 129 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Piedmont Wagon & Manufacturing Co. v. Bird
176 S.E. 109 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Mays v. Mays
126 S.E. 299 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
93 S.E. 40, 20 Ga. App. 395, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawk-v-western-atlantic-railroad-gactapp-1917.