Lee v. Brandenburg

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lee v. Brandenburg

122 S.E. 247, 31 Ga. App. 794, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 199

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 13, 1924

Docket14851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 S.E. 247 (Lee v. Brandenburg) 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

Lee v. Brandenburg, 122 S.E. 247, 31 Ga. App. 794, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This was a default judgment in trover, where the plaintiff elected to take judgment for the property, together with rent or hire. There was opinion testimony fot the plaintiff as to the rental value of the property, and the judge directed a verdict accordingly. This was error. Minchew v. Nahunta Lumber Co., 5 Ga. App. 154 (4) (62 S. E. 716); Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192 (91 S. E. 220). See also Hammock v. King, 146 Ga. 681 (92 S. E. 57); Graham v. Graham, 137 Ga. 668 (2) (74 S. E. 426); Baker v. Richmond City Mills Works, 105 Ga. 225 (31 S. E. 426). The judge therefore properly granted the motion for new trial. If the plaintiff in the court below, by the time the remittitur is made the judgment of that court, shall voluntarily write off from amount of the judgment the amount specifically awarded for [795]*795rent, the judgment granting a new trial will be reversed; otherwise it will stand affirmed.

Decided March 13, 1924. A. D. Meador, for plaintiff. King & Johnson, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, on condition;

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This was a default judgment in trover, where the plaintiff elected to take judgment for the property, together with rent or hire. There was opinion testimony fot the plaintiff as to the rental value of the property, and the judge directed a verdict accordingly. This was error. Minchew v. Nahunta Lumber Co., 5 Ga. App. 154 (4) (62 S. E. 716); Johnson v. Stevens, 19 Ga. App. 192 (91 S. E. 220). See also Hammock v. King, 146 Ga. 681 (92 S. E. 57); Graham v. Graham, 137 Ga. 668 (2) (74 S. E. 426); Baker v. Richmond City Mills Works, 105 Ga. 225 (31 S. E. 426). The judge therefore properly granted the motion for new trial. If the plaintiff in the court below, by the time the remittitur is made the judgment of that court, shall voluntarily write off from amount of the judgment the amount specifically awarded for [795]*795rent, the judgment granting a new trial will be reversed; otherwise it will stand affirmed.

Decided March 13, 1924. A. D. Meador, for plaintiff. King & Johnson, for defendant.

Judgment reversed, on condition;

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.E. 247, 31 Ga. App. 794, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-brandenburg-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack