Martin v. Denson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Martin v. Denson

160 S.E.2d 210, 117 Ga. App. 288, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1065

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 21, 1968

Docket43455

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 160 S.E.2d 210 (Martin v. Denson) 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

Martin v. Denson, 160 S.E.2d 210, 117 Ga. App. 288, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1065 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

After a verdict for $800 in this negligence action, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the general grounds. The defendant appeals from this judgment, contending that since the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, as amended; Code Ann. Title 81A) the first grant of a motion for new trial is subject to review as an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The law prior to the Civil Practice Act, supra, was that the first grant of a new trial was not error unless the evidence demanded a verdict for the party opposing the motion. Code § 6-1608; Harper v. Green, 113 Ga. App. 557 (149 SE2d 163). Neither the provision of the Civil Practice Act cited by the defendant (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (c)) nor any other provision changes this rule. The defendant does not contend that the evidence demanded a verdict in his favor.

The trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Hall, Judge.

After a verdict for $800 in this negligence action, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for new trial on the general grounds. The defendant appeals from this judgment, contending that since the Civil Practice Act (Ga. L. 1966, p. 609, as amended; Code Ann. Title 81A) the first grant of a motion for new trial is subject to review as an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The law prior to the Civil Practice Act, supra, was that the first grant of a new trial was not error unless the evidence demanded a verdict for the party opposing the motion. Code § 6-1608; Harper v. Green, 113 Ga. App. 557 (149 SE2d 163). Neither the provision of the Civil Practice Act cited by the defendant (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (c)) nor any other provision changes this rule. The defendant does not contend that the evidence demanded a verdict in his favor.

The trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 S.E.2d 210, 117 Ga. App. 288, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-denson-gactapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack