Lane v. Ivy

74 S.E. 782, 138 Ga. 120, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 217

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

“The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge.” Civil. Code, § 6204. In this case it does not appear that the law and facts required the verdict, nor that the judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices eoneur.