Moore v. Macon Railway & Light Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. Macon Railway & Light Co.

70 S.E. 156, 8 Ga. App. 786, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 146

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 15, 1911

Docket2600

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 S.E. 156 (Moore v. Macon Railway & Light Co.) 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

Moore v. Macon Railway & Light Co., 70 S.E. 156, 8 Ga. App. 786, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 146 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

The ease was tried before a jury in a justice’s court, and brought to the superior court on certiorari. Only an issue of fact was involved. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find in favor of either party. In such cases the judge of the superior court has full power to pass upon the facts, and either to overrule the certiorari or to grant a new trial, accordingly as he thinks the evidence preponderates one way or the other. The time-honored rule is that in such cases the reviewing court no more interferes with the discretion of'the trial judge over the facts on certiorari than it does when the facts are before him on motion for new trial. There is an intimation in the record and a statement in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error that there had been other concurrent verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, which had been set aside on previous certioraries. If it appeared definitely from the record that the judge had sustained previous certioraries, thus diminishing his discretion, it might be incumbent upon us to look further into the facts to see whether he had abused that discretion or not. Judgment, affirmed.

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

Powell, J.

The ease was tried before a jury in a justice’s court, and brought to the superior court on certiorari. Only an issue of fact was involved. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find in favor of either party. In such cases the judge of the superior court has full power to pass upon the facts, and either to overrule the certiorari or to grant a new trial, accordingly as he thinks the evidence preponderates one way or the other. The time-honored rule is that in such cases the reviewing court no more interferes with the discretion of'the trial judge over the facts on certiorari than it does when the facts are before him on motion for new trial. There is an intimation in the record and a statement in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error that there had been other concurrent verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, which had been set aside on previous certioraries. If it appeared definitely from the record that the judge had sustained previous certioraries, thus diminishing his discretion, it might be incumbent upon us to look further into the facts to see whether he had abused that discretion or not. Judgment, affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 156, 8 Ga. App. 786, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-macon-railway-light-co-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack