Keener v. Headrick

Supreme Court of Georgia

Keener v. Headrick

152 S.E. 254, 170 Ga. 242, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 430

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1930

DocketNo. 7254

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 152 S.E. 254 (Keener v. Headrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Keener v. Headrick, 152 S.E. 254, 170 Ga. 242, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 430 (Ga. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The exception is to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. The motion contains the general grounds, and a special ground which complains that one of the jurors trying the case was related to the defendant within the prohibited degree. The uncontradieted evidence submitted on the hearing of the motion established the relationship as contended. The evidence also showed good character of the witnesses by whom the fact was established; also that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had knowledge of such fact until after the rendition of the verdict. Held, that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial, although the relationship was unknown to the juror at the time. Young v. Cochran Banking Co., 166 Ga. 877 (3) (144 S. E. 652).

2. Since the case is to be tried again, no ruling' is made upon the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., absent for providential cause.

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

Per Curiam.

The exception is to a judgment overruling a motion for a new trial. The motion contains the general grounds, and a special ground which complains that one of the jurors trying the case was related to the defendant within the prohibited degree. The uncontradieted evidence submitted on the hearing of the motion established the relationship as contended. The evidence also showed good character of the witnesses by whom the fact was established; also that neither the plaintiff nor his counsel had knowledge of such fact until after the rendition of the verdict. Held, that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial, although the relationship was unknown to the juror at the time. Young v. Cochran Banking Co., 166 Ga. 877 (3) (144 S. E. 652).

2. Since the case is to be tried again, no ruling' is made upon the sufficiency of the evidence.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Russell, G. J., absent for providential cause.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 254, 170 Ga. 242, 1930 Ga. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keener-v-headrick-ga-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack