National Bank v. Refrigerated Transport Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

National Bank v. Refrigerated Transport Co.

239 S.E.2d 551, 143 Ga. App. 661, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2452

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 26, 1977

Docket54668

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 S.E.2d 551 (National Bank v. Refrigerated Transport 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

National Bank v. Refrigerated Transport Co., 239 S.E.2d 551, 143 Ga. App. 661, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2452 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. (Refrigerated), brought suit against National Bank of Georgia for *662 conversion of checks made payable to it which the bank permitted to be cashed and deposited by United Account Systems, Inc., a collection agency.

Argued October 5, 1977 Decided October 26, 1977. Heyman & Sizemore, William H. Major, Hicks, *663 Maloof & Campbell, Robert A. Bartlett, Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler & Martin, Ralph H. Hicks, William D. Barwick, for appellant.

*662 On November 5,1976, the jury returned a verdict for Refrigerated and awarded the company $9,397.96. Three days later, Refrigerated filed a motion for a judgment n.o.v., and for a new trial. On April 12,1977, Refrigerated filed an amendment to its motion for a judgment n.o.v. After a hearing on Refrigerated’s motion for a judgment n.o.v., the trial court entered an order granting appellee’s motion and awarded it $45,289.00 less $7,699.04 which had already been paid to the company. Three days later, the court entered a nunc pro tunc order awarding appellee $8,718.32 in interest less prejudgment interest on the $7,699.04. The court, however, did not rule on appellee’s motion for a new trial. This case, therefore, is not properly before this court.

CPA § 50 (c) (1) (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (c) (1)) provides: "If the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict provided for in subsection (b) of this section is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial.” (Emphasis supplied.) "The purpose of the trial court’s ruling upon the motion for new trial in addition to the motion for judgment n.o.v., as is apparent from subsection (c) (1), is to eliminate the necessity, should the appellate court reverse the granting of the judgment n.o.v., of remanding the case to the trial court for a ruling upon the motion for a new trial, from which ruling yet another appeal could be taken, resulting in fractured appellate consideration of questions arising from the same trial.” Speer v. Gemco Elevator Co., 134 Ga. App. 360 (214 SE2d 425).

Remanded with direction.

Webb and Birdsong, JJ., concur. *663 Serby & Mitchell, Louis C. Parker, III, for appellee.

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

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Refrigerated Transport Co., Inc. (Refrigerated), brought suit against National Bank of Georgia for *662 conversion of checks made payable to it which the bank permitted to be cashed and deposited by United Account Systems, Inc., a collection agency.

Argued October 5, 1977 Decided October 26, 1977. Heyman & Sizemore, William H. Major, Hicks, *663 Maloof & Campbell, Robert A. Bartlett, Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler & Martin, Ralph H. Hicks, William D. Barwick, for appellant.

*662 On November 5,1976, the jury returned a verdict for Refrigerated and awarded the company $9,397.96. Three days later, Refrigerated filed a motion for a judgment n.o.v., and for a new trial. On April 12,1977, Refrigerated filed an amendment to its motion for a judgment n.o.v. After a hearing on Refrigerated’s motion for a judgment n.o.v., the trial court entered an order granting appellee’s motion and awarded it $45,289.00 less $7,699.04 which had already been paid to the company. Three days later, the court entered a nunc pro tunc order awarding appellee $8,718.32 in interest less prejudgment interest on the $7,699.04. The court, however, did not rule on appellee’s motion for a new trial. This case, therefore, is not properly before this court.

CPA § 50 (c) (1) (Code Ann. § 81A-150 (c) (1)) provides: "If the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict provided for in subsection (b) of this section is granted, the court shall also rule on the motion for a new trial, if any, by determining whether it should be granted if the judgment is thereafter vacated or reversed, and shall specify the grounds for granting or denying the motion for the new trial.” (Emphasis supplied.) "The purpose of the trial court’s ruling upon the motion for new trial in addition to the motion for judgment n.o.v., as is apparent from subsection (c) (1), is to eliminate the necessity, should the appellate court reverse the granting of the judgment n.o.v., of remanding the case to the trial court for a ruling upon the motion for a new trial, from which ruling yet another appeal could be taken, resulting in fractured appellate consideration of questions arising from the same trial.” Speer v. Gemco Elevator Co., 134 Ga. App. 360 (214 SE2d 425).

Remanded with direction.

Webb and Birdsong, JJ., concur. *663 Serby & Mitchell, Louis C. Parker, III, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.E.2d 551, 143 Ga. App. 661, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-bank-v-refrigerated-transport-co-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack