O'Kelley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

O'Kelley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

89 S.E. 428, 18 Ga. App. 412, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 377

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1916

Docket7128

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 428 (O'Kelley v. Central of Georgia Railway 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

O'Kelley v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 89 S.E. 428, 18 Ga. App. 412, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyíes, J.

1. This is the third appearance here of this ease, [413]*413and upon its last review this court held as follows: “It appears, from the express recitals in the order of the trial judge overruling the motion for a new trial, that he did not exercise his discretion in passing upon the motion; and for this reason the judgment is reversed, and the case is sent back with direction that the trial judge pass upon the motion, in the exercise of the discretion with which he is charged by law. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 120 Ga. 67 (47 S. E. 501, 102 Am. St. R. 71, 1 Ann. Cas. 606); M., D. & S. R. Co. v. Anchors, 140 Ga. 531-535 (79 S. E. 153); Savannah Electric Co. v. Lackens, 12 Ga. App. 765-767 (79 S. E. 53), and cases there cited.” Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. O’Kelley, 16 Ga. App. 594 (3), 595 (85 S. E. 938). Thereafter the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the lower court, and the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, granted a new trial. All the points argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff in error are absolutely controlled and concluded by the adjudication of this court when the case was last under review. See Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. O’Kelley, supra. The only question now before us is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial, and it has not been made to appear to us that he did so.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Bboyíes, J.

1. This is the third appearance here of this ease, [413]*413and upon its last review this court held as follows: “It appears, from the express recitals in the order of the trial judge overruling the motion for a new trial, that he did not exercise his discretion in passing upon the motion; and for this reason the judgment is reversed, and the case is sent back with direction that the trial judge pass upon the motion, in the exercise of the discretion with which he is charged by law. McIntyre v. McIntyre, 120 Ga. 67 (47 S. E. 501, 102 Am. St. R. 71, 1 Ann. Cas. 606); M., D. & S. R. Co. v. Anchors, 140 Ga. 531-535 (79 S. E. 153); Savannah Electric Co. v. Lackens, 12 Ga. App. 765-767 (79 S. E. 53), and cases there cited.” Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. O’Kelley, 16 Ga. App. 594 (3), 595 (85 S. E. 938). Thereafter the judgment of this court was made the judgment of the lower court, and the trial judge, in the exercise of his discretion, granted a new trial. All the points argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff in error are absolutely controlled and concluded by the adjudication of this court when the case was last under review. See Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. O’Kelley, supra. The only question now before us is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial, and it has not been made to appear to us that he did so.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 428, 18 Ga. App. 412, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/okelley-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack