McKinney v. Darby

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McKinney v. Darby

199 S.E. 649, 58 Ga. App. 725, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 113

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1938

Docket26962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 199 S.E. 649 (McKinney v. Darby) 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

McKinney v. Darby, 199 S.E. 649, 58 Ga. App. 725, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, P. J.

An attack in a motion for new trial upon a verdict as invalid on the ground that one of the jurors who participated in the verdict had, before tire term of the court, been approached by the losing party in an effort to induce the juror to render a favorable verdict, by stating to him that the plaintiff wanted the juror to do him, the plaintiff, good on the trial of the case, '“for which favor the juror would not lose anything,” is an effort to impeach the verdict; and since, as provided in the Code, § 110-109, the affidavit of a juror will not be taken to impeach the verdict, the court properly rejected the affidavit of the juror when it was offered on a motion for new trial for the purpose of showing an effort by the losing party to influence the juror. Coleman v. State, 28 Ga. 79 (2); Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 199 (12); McElven v. State, 30 Ga. 869; Rutland v. Hathorn, 36 Ga. 380 (6); O’Barr v. Alexander, 37 Ga. 195 (5); Hoye v. State, 39 Ga. 718 (4); Fulton County v. Phillips, 91 Ga. 65 (16 S. E. 260); Peagler v. Huey, 183 Ga. 677 (188 S. E. 906); Etheridge v. State, 43 Ga. App. 579 (159 S. E. 747). This being the only evidence offered in support of the contention, the court did not err in rejecting the affidavit, and in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

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

Stephens, P. J.

An attack in a motion for new trial upon a verdict as invalid on the ground that one of the jurors who participated in the verdict had, before tire term of the court, been approached by the losing party in an effort to induce the juror to render a favorable verdict, by stating to him that the plaintiff wanted the juror to do him, the plaintiff, good on the trial of the case, '“for which favor the juror would not lose anything,” is an effort to impeach the verdict; and since, as provided in the Code, § 110-109, the affidavit of a juror will not be taken to impeach the verdict, the court properly rejected the affidavit of the juror when it was offered on a motion for new trial for the purpose of showing an effort by the losing party to influence the juror. Coleman v. State, 28 Ga. 79 (2); Brown v. State, 28 Ga. 199 (12); McElven v. State, 30 Ga. 869; Rutland v. Hathorn, 36 Ga. 380 (6); O’Barr v. Alexander, 37 Ga. 195 (5); Hoye v. State, 39 Ga. 718 (4); Fulton County v. Phillips, 91 Ga. 65 (16 S. E. 260); Peagler v. Huey, 183 Ga. 677 (188 S. E. 906); Etheridge v. State, 43 Ga. App. 579 (159 S. E. 747). This being the only evidence offered in support of the contention, the court did not err in rejecting the affidavit, and in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton and Felton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 S.E. 649, 58 Ga. App. 725, 1938 Ga. App. LEXIS 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mckinney-v-darby-gactapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack